A Most Evident Truth

                                  A Most Evident Truth

The Western world is becoming accustomed to hearing and reading about Islamists and their Islam. In my opinion, these particular Muslims practice the purest form of Islam. All others, no matter what sect, no matter how moderate, no matter their country of origin, are a deviation from the Islam delineated in the holy Quran. And I refer to the Quran as “holy” because, as any serious Muslim will tell you, the Quran commands that its prescriptions and proscriptions are to be preserved entire, forbidding a departure of any kind or any measure from its uncompromising ideology. Such religiously instructed intransigence is the reason there will never be a reform movement within the Islamic world and the Muslims who inhabit it.

An issue that greatly concerns me about Islamists and their Islam, regardless of the fact that they represent only a small percentage of Muslims worldwide, is that their hatred of all things Western, and the attendant commentary and violence that propagate such odium, becomes motivator for moderate Muslims to become more like Islamists and less moderate in their behavior—more terrorist and less law-abiding citizen. Canadians cannot admit Muslim immigrants into this country without admitting also, although perhaps inadvertently, the potential terrorists among them. It is a most evident truth that wherever there are Muslim communities, there resides the threat of terrorism also. Whether they exist in Western cities like New York or London or Toronto, or in the cities of countries where Islam is the preponderant religion, like Iraq or Afghanistan or Pakistan, there you will find also the Islamists who are ready and willing to commit acts of terror.      

What you will also find residing in great measure with these Islamists is the Muslim anti-Semitism so plethoric in the Arab Middle East. This is also a most evident truth and, most unfortunately, a reality of Islam not confined only to the Middle East. The German political scientist Matthias Kunzel writes that “It is hard to overlook how hatred imported from Beirut and Gaza resurfaces in the form of daily acts of anti-Semitism in schools and athletic clubs, on streets and in the subway.” Not only do we imprudently import their religiously incited terrorism, but also the Muslim immigrant’s religiously taught anti-Jewish hatred. This is a hatred reaching back 1400 years, hatred very much a part, not only of the Islamist mindset, but also the consciousness of even the “moderate” Muslim. Western journalists seldom mention this fact, even though it is a most evident truth: it is only Jew-hatred, so why should a non-Jew risk a bright future in journalism because of a human malady that targets only Jews?

 Matthias Kuntzel tells of German Muslim students in Berlin refusing to take part in school trips to concentration camp memorials. “During one excursion to the German Historical Museum,” he writes, “a group of Muslim youths gathered in front of a replica of a gas chamber in Auschwitz and applauded.” A 24 year old Oakville, Ontario resident, Paris Dipersico, was dragged from his bicycle, tied to a tree and beaten unconscious by two Muslim men because of a book he wrote critical of Islam (Wake Up Call). As they were beating him, these zealous Muslims called him “Jew!” in Arabic (as though being Jewish is a sin) and told him that “the Jews are paying you to write this against Islam.” Such devotion!  

Tacitus wrote, “Where they make a desert, they call it peace.” I have no idea who Tacitus was writing about, but the statement fits the Arab Muslim world perfectly. They will have peace with the rest of the world maybe, but definitely never with the Jews. And this is no peace at all. This shameless impasse is also a most evident truth, but it is a truth only the most prudent of this world are honest enough to acknowledge. Fools like Mayor Bloomberg and others who encourage and defend the construction of a mosque at Ground Zero in New York City have closed their eyes to it. Those who refuse to connect the dots between the religion of Islam proper and the scourge of Islamist terrorism will never see, as do many of Israel’s Jews see, the utter futility of ever believing for one minute that Arab Muslims (including the so-called “Palestinians”) are willing to even imagine a future of peaceful relations with the State of Israel. Israel’s Jews realize that the most evident truth about their Arab Muslim neighbors is that there is no truth in their promises of peace.

Written by Michael Devolin

A Most Evident Truth

Tarek Fatah's Imbroglio

Tarek Fatah’s Imbroglio

As I read Tarek Fatah’s latest contribution to the National
Post (re: Proud to be Muslim and proud to fight Islamofacism), I was amazed yet
again, not only that this piece, along with his previous contributions, are
given free rein in that great newspaper, but also that, as a consequence of
this journalistic accommodation, his contradictions inadvertently (and, in my
opinion, undeservedly) acquire a sagacious air.

One should be careful to remember when reading Tarek Fatah’s
take on Islam that the axiomatic is not synonymous of the truth, neither do
superior numbers, in this case Mr. Fatah’s popularity among non-Muslims,
indicate veracity. That one should have to write an entire book as a means of
convincing the non-Muslim—and perhaps the Muslim—world that Islam’s long
history of anti-Jewish violence does not justify the contemporary delineation
of this ancient religion as being nothing more than a racist and malefic belief
system, and that the very efficacy and perpetuity can be easily identified in
this same anti-Jewish hatred, merely verifies the prudent wisdom of the Hebrew
proverb, “A fool is known by a multitude of words.”

How similar to other apologists for Islam is Mr. Fatah when
he esteems all non-violent Muslims as true Muslims and condemns all violence-prone
or extremely religious Muslims as “Islamists.” This tendency of the apologist,
to exculpate his/her religion in order to distance its promised good from those
religious who might betray spiritual imperfections, had been the habit of
Christians for the sake of Christianity long before Muslims began their present
toil for the sake of Islam. There are numerous instances when I have heard or
read Christians describe members of the Einsatzgruppen (“mobile killing
units”), or the Ukrainian camp guards who walked little Jewish children to the
gas chambers of Auschwitz and Sobibor and Treblinka, as not being “real
Christians.” But these henchmen for the cause of Nazism were real Christians—in
the same way that those animals who beheaded Daniel Pearl and murdered the
Russian children of Beslan were real Muslims.

I think it was Bruno Bettelheim who wrote, “If all men are
good, there can be no Auschwitz.” This observation applies to Islam: If Islam
is a totally salubrious faith, then there can be no Islamofacism—there would
never have been a 9/11 and Daniel Pearl would still be alive today. Fatah
writes that “Islam is a religion with roots in Judaism and Christianity.” What
he fails to mention to his readers is the fact that both Christianity and Islam
were introduced into the world by way of a very public repudiation and
derogation of Judaism and the exclusive connection it commands to the Jewish
people. To imply that Islam in any way portrays Judaism and the Jewish people
as being responsible for any good that Islam may affect in its adherents is to
tell a shameless lie. Mr. Fatah will know that Islam instead claims that the
“words of the Prophet” render as obsolete all other religions—past, present and
future. Tarek Fatah’s only obstacle is that he is not courageous enough to
repudiate Islam outright. For this reluctance I don’t blame him. After all, to
publicly repudiate Islam is pronounce a death penalty upon oneself.

Mr. Fatah writes in the National Post that its readers
“should know the difference between Islam and Islamism.” It is my opinion that
they are one and the same, only difference being that Islamism is more aligned
to the original and veridical Islam: the Islam of the Prophet Mohammed and not
the watered-down version practiced by irresolute apologists like Tarek Fatah.
To pretend otherwise is to perpetuate the very evil he hopes to destroy.

“The fool rages and is confident.” –Book of Proverbs

Written by Michael Devolin

Tarek Fatah's Imbroglio

Tarek Fatah’s Imbroglio

As I read Tarek Fatah’s latest contribution to the National
Post (re: Proud to be Muslim and proud to fight Islamofacism), I was amazed yet
again, not only that this piece, along with his previous contributions, are
given free rein in that great newspaper, but also that, as a consequence of
this journalistic accommodation, his contradictions inadvertently (and, in my
opinion, undeservedly) acquire a sagacious air.

One should be careful to remember when reading Tarek Fatah’s
take on Islam that the axiomatic is not synonymous of the truth, neither do
superior numbers, in this case Mr. Fatah’s popularity among non-Muslims,
indicate veracity. That one should have to write an entire book as a means of
convincing the non-Muslim—and perhaps the Muslim—world that Islam’s long
history of anti-Jewish violence does not justify the contemporary delineation
of this ancient religion as being nothing more than a racist and malefic belief
system, and that the very efficacy and perpetuity can be easily identified in
this same anti-Jewish hatred, merely verifies the prudent wisdom of the Hebrew
proverb, “A fool is known by a multitude of words.”

How similar to other apologists for Islam is Mr. Fatah when
he esteems all non-violent Muslims as true Muslims and condemns all violence-prone
or extremely religious Muslims as “Islamists.” This tendency of the apologist,
to exculpate his/her religion in order to distance its promised good from those
religious who might betray spiritual imperfections, had been the habit of
Christians for the sake of Christianity long before Muslims began their present
toil for the sake of Islam. There are numerous instances when I have heard or
read Christians describe members of the Einsatzgruppen (“mobile killing
units”), or the Ukrainian camp guards who walked little Jewish children to the
gas chambers of Auschwitz and Sobibor and Treblinka, as not being “real
Christians.” But these henchmen for the cause of Nazism were real Christians—in
the same way that those animals who beheaded Daniel Pearl and murdered the
Russian children of Beslan were real Muslims.

I think it was Bruno Bettelheim who wrote, “If all men are
good, there can be no Auschwitz.” This observation applies to Islam: If Islam
is a totally salubrious faith, then there can be no Islamofacism—there would
never have been a 9/11 and Daniel Pearl would still be alive today. Fatah
writes that “Islam is a religion with roots in Judaism and Christianity.” What
he fails to mention to his readers is the fact that both Christianity and Islam
were introduced into the world by way of a very public repudiation and
derogation of Judaism and the exclusive connection it commands to the Jewish
people. To imply that Islam in any way portrays Judaism and the Jewish people
as being responsible for any good that Islam may affect in its adherents is to
tell a shameless lie. Mr. Fatah will know that Islam instead claims that the
“words of the Prophet” render as obsolete all other religions—past, present and
future. Tarek Fatah’s only obstacle is that he is not courageous enough to
repudiate Islam outright. For this reluctance I don’t blame him. After all, to
publicly repudiate Islam is pronounce a death penalty upon oneself.

Mr. Fatah writes in the National Post that its readers
“should know the difference between Islam and Islamism.” It is my opinion that
they are one and the same, only difference being that Islamism is more aligned
to the original and veridical Islam: the Islam of the Prophet Mohammed and not
the watered-down version practiced by irresolute apologists like Tarek Fatah.
To pretend otherwise is to perpetuate the very evil he hopes to destroy.

“The fool rages and is confident.” –Book of Proverbs

Written by Michael Devolin

Canada's Weakest Link

Canada’s Weakest Link


It was reported in the Globe and Mail recently that Mr. Justice Edmond Blanchard of the Federal Court of Canada refused to grant a warrant to CSIS (Canadian Security Intelligence Service) which would have enabled them to “carry out overseas electronic intercepts”. Apparently the Federal Court of Canada is now become predominantly expert on the issue of Islamic terrorism abroad, as though Islamic terrorism without Canada is in no way connected to the threat of Islamic terrorism within Canada. In the same insouciant manner the Liberal government disdainfully rebuffed the advice of CSIS on the matter of an insidious Tamil Tiger presence in the City of Toronto, now the Federal Court has rejected the prudent designs of our intelligence service and its efforts to thwart the threat of Islamic terrorism—or at the very least, its efforts to be cognitive of the threat of terrorism—before it reaches our shores, our streets, our homes.

T. S. Elliot wrote, “Human kind cannot bear very much reality.” I believe Canada’s justice system is not determined enough to deal with what has always been Islam’s prevalent reality—its violence and hatred. For example, two of the 17 terrorist suspects arrested June 2nd and 3rd 2006 were released on the condition that they report to the police twice a month and (get this) that they seek counselling from their respective Imams. This is justice? Sending suspected terrorists to receive counsel from a cleric of the very religion that served to animate them to violence? Salman Hossain, a University of Toronto student, was identified and visited by the RCMP for advocating on an internet blog page the murder of Canadian soldiers in Canada— before they leave for Afghanistan! What is his punishment? None. He is still attending classes, the last I heard, a free man and an avowed enemy of the Canadian Armed Forces. The above examples are indicative of a democracy and a justice system as yet unconvinced of Islam’s malefic nature—further proof that Canada is still sleep-walking into the teeth of a religious ideology that has spawned terrorist groups like al-Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah.

I remember shortly after 9/11 a New Yorker angrily remarking to a TV reporter, “We have to go after these mother-f---ers!” Efraim Halevi, former head of Israel’s Mossad, justifies Israel’s targeted assassinations of Hamas leadership by clarifying to those who decry such methods, “This is a wartime situation, and in war you need to take drastic measures to defeat the enemy.” Sam Harris writes (The End Of Faith), “Subtract the Muslim belief in martyrdom and jihad, and the actions of suicide bombers become completely unintelligible, as does the spectacle of public jubilation that invariably follows their deaths; insert these peculiar beliefs, and one can only marvel that suicide bombing is not more widespread. Anyone who says that the doctrines of Islam have ‘nothing to do with terrorism’—and our airways have been filled with apologists for Islam making this claim—is just playing a game with words.”

In other words, Canada’s Federal Judiciary, and Justice Edmond Blanchard in particular, is making a fatal mistake by disallowing CSIS to “keep tabs” on Muslim terrorists operating outside Canada; a fatal mistake simply because it is logical for CSIS to assume—post 9/11—that these “jihadists”, whether in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, or Bangladesh, are designing to attack Canadian (or American) targets inside Canada. Remember that bin Laden has placed Canada on his hit-list of those nations he deems deserving of Islamist justice. Islamist terrorists half a world away will not be placated because here in Canada our unctuous human rights commissions pander to the whims and wishes of litigious Muslim apologists like Prof. Elmasry and Syed Soharwardy. Canada’s weakest link is our Federal Judiciary’s foolhardy assumption that concentrating on Islamic terrorists within Canada is the circumference of our salvation from those terrorist who operate outside Canada. Such an assumption is grossly negligent, a negligence that invariably imperils the average Canadian citizen.

What we need from our Judiciary is conviction and punishment of those potential terrorists already living here in Canada, who shamelessly proclaim their disloyalty to our nation and our soldiers; we need from them a more tangible form of justice, something that will prevent these madmen from committing the acts of terrorism their religion demands of them; and finally, we need the Canadian Judiciary to grant CSIS the necessary license to thwart and deny those Muslim jihadists beyond our borders the opportunity to realize their malevolent objectives within our borders. If Justice Blanchard is not equal to these tasks, then he needs to be replaced by someone who is. His timidity in the face of Islamic terrorism is presently Canada’s weakest link in the war being waged against it.

Michael Devolin,
Director, B’nai Elim Canada

Islam: The Real Culprit

Islam: The Real Culprit
Religion Michael DevolinFebruary 9, 2008



It is written in the Jewish Torah that Jacob, after wrestling with an angel, inquired of him, "Divulge, if you please, your name." Jacob wanted to know with whom he was wrestling. Afterward, he asked the angel to bless him, and the angel, it is recorded in the Torah, blessed Jacob. There is a lesson here for the Western world today: Know with whom you are wrestling, and know also whether your opponent, after you make peace with him, can benefit you.

I believe our so-called experts - media-junkies like Daniel Pipes for example - have become so buried by self-aggrandizement and megalomania in their blind pursuit of presenting to the Western masses every week yet another of their remedies to the crisis befalling the non-Muslim world that they have omitted, whether intentionally or otherwise, the real culprit behind all these problems, which, in my opinion, is the religion of Islam. Here you have Daniel Pipes suggesting Israel annex Jewish land to Muslim Egypt; there you have President Bush suggesting Israel donate Jerusalem to Palestinian terrorists. And all this time Islam, wherever Islam is the predominant religion, continues teaching its adherents to hate these good-willed and insanely generous and naive non-Muslim types: take no Christians or Jews for your friends - unless, of course, they are donating billions to your Muslim nation or giving away Jewish land to your Muslim terrorist brothers.

I watched a debate on TV the other night during which Sam Harris (The End of Faith) opined that to proposition the core belief of Islam as being non-violent is ridiculous. In one of his articles (Sam Harris on the Reality of Islam) he writes, "It is time we recognized - and obliged the Muslim world to recognize - that ‘Muslim extremism' is not extreme among Muslims." This statement is altogether contrary to Daniel Pipes proudly proclaiming to the world that "moderate Muslims" will save the nation of Turkey from Islamic extremism. Daniel Pipes, it should be noted, also at the time and in the same article, besmirched all my non-Muslim friends who are, at this moment, heart-and-soul and fearfully engaged in warning the West of what they perceive is the malevolent threat of Islam the religion. Daniel Pipes is one of those cloud-covered critics who deem everyday human beings who actually feel afraid of Islam (as if that's illogical!) as being mentally unstable. I personally think Daniel Pipes' obsequious dedication to political expediency has left him afflicted with a morbid blunting and deterioration of his senses. But that's just me.

I recently had the pleasure of meeting California's talk show host Arlene Peck. Here is a woman who has never backed down from kicking Israel's enemies (one of which is the religion of Islam) squarely in the behind. From our conversation I gathered that she has identified Islam the religion as being the real culprit behind suicide bombings and contemporary anti-Jewish hatred. Arlene's brave stance is no surprise to me, since women, when you consider examples like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Oriana Fallaci, and Wafa Sultan, are making a far more overt stand against the religion of Islam and its attendant violence than are men.

In a study published by The Journal of Conflict Resolution by Yale University biostatistician Dr. Edward H. Kaplan, and Dr. Charles A. Small of the Yale Institute for the Study of Global Anti-Semitism (anti-Jewish hatred) we read that,

"In the Muslim world, attitudes toward Jews remain starkly negative, including virtually unanimous unfavorable ratings of 98% in Jordan and 97% in Egypt. Muslims living in Western countries have a more moderate view of Jews - still more negative than positive, but not nearly by the lopsided margins that prevail in Muslim countries."

No small wonder then that women, like those fearless souls I mention above, against whom the religion of Islam dictates much discriminatory denigration, are at the forefront in exposing to the Western world these malefic trends of Islam the religion - to the shame of politically constrained egoists like Daniel Pipes.

It is written that the angel, after he had agreed to a truce with Jacob, blessed him. The non-Muslim West will never experience peace with Islam, let alone a blessing forthcoming from its savage ideology. Islam the religion, as exampled by Islam-dominated nations, does not accord the non-Muslim equal status. And what patriotic, freedom-loving American or Canadian or Brit or Australian would accept such a servile and degradative denouement? Moreover, who of us, whether Canadian or American or Brit or Australian, would accept this same degradative denouement imposed upon us by Islam's litigious, religiously driven expansionists? Hence I ask the hypothetical question: After we make peace with Islam (even if peace with Islam were actually attainable), how could such an insalubrious, intolerant, and racist religion actually benefit Western "kaffirs"? The answer is that it can't, and Islam's bloody history is evidence of this undeniable truth.

Islam holds no blessing in reserve for Western man, only tyranny and brutality. No amount of apologia, sycophantism, flattery, sophism, and cavil will ever alter this devastatingly portentous reality.

Edward Watson Howe wrote that, "What people say behind your back is your standing in the community." Regardless the inroads Islam's pronoid protagonists believe they have achieved, whether by exploiting what has transpired to be the West's imprudently accommodative justice system, whether by exploiting what most non-Muslim Westerners perceive to be Islam's tradition of violence against those who openly oppose its expansions, nothing will change the fact that the majority of Western "kaffirs" quietly realize by now that Islam the religion is the real culprit here - the terrorists and hate-driven imams who give substance to its terrifying ideology are logically but dreadfully secondary.

I believe that Islam the religion, whether "over there" or "over here," is even now forcing Western governments into that position John F. Kennedy defined when he warned that, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

Mr. Devolin’s piece first ran in the Magic City Morning Star

Christopher Hitchens: Secularist Fundamentalist

From Magic City Morning Star
Michael Devolin

Christopher Hitchens: Secularist Fundamentalist

By Michael Devolin

I used to enjoy Christopher Hitchens and his articles critical of Islam. I assumed at the time he could discern the difference between the barbarities of Islam-barbarities no different in this 21st century than they were in the 7th century-and the benignant tenets of Judaism and how these same tenets have proven to be as beneficial to mankind today as they were before, during, and after the Hellenic age. To equate the long ago defiant independence movement of the Maccabee Jews and their adherence to the nationalist aspirations of Judaism with the expansionist and anti-Jewish ideologies of both Christianity and Islam is to blame the Jews for the genocide of Adolph Hitler's Holocaust and the bloodlust and violence of Osama bin Laden's jihadist terrorism. What Hitchens fails to mention in Bah Hanukkah is that the Maccabean revolt was not the only nationalist movement the history of that era records for us. There were also the provinces of Bactria, Parthia, and Cappadocia who asserted their independence. There were more than the Jews of Israel (not "Palestine") with whom the idea of being conquered and subsequently ruled by foreign invaders who demanded taxes and taught philosophy and religion at the point of the sword did not sit well. I guess this historical fact, the brutality of the Greek army, was lost on Hitchens, or maybe he intentionally avoided mentioning it. Primo Levi wrote, "An extreme case of the distortion of a committed guilty act is found in its suppression."
According to Christopher Hitchens, history has forgiven rulers such as Alexander the Great of rampaging about the world imposing by force upon conquered peoples the adoption of Hellenist philosophy and religious sentiment and, as happened in the land of Israel at the time, not only the prohibition of Judaism but also the worship of the G-D of Israel as defined in Judaism. Miserable secularist that he is, Hitchens fails to mention also that the Greeks demanded the Jews worship their gods, a decree antithetical to the tenets of Judaism. His praise of Hellenism's "secularism and philosophy" is not only a contradiction of the fact that Hellenism was all about the polytheistic worship of a pantheon of Greek gods, but also, laughably, this imposture conflicts with his personal and many published aggrandizements of secularism. The angry stupidity of Christopher Hitchens proves the veracity of the proverb, "Zeal without reflection is dangerous."
Our poor historian then excoriates the Maccabean dynasty for becoming "exorbitantly corrupt, vicious, and divided." Just like the Islamic fundamentalists whom Hitchens so often accuses of malice, he now imitates their propagandists by obfuscating the harsh and dissentious realities endured by the Jewish people in Israel (not "Palestine") during the Greek and Roman occupations. He fails to mention that these same Greek and Roman "saviours" and their respective god-cultures were responsible for the politically and religiously motivated murder of Jews by hundreds and thousands. From this point on I will refer to Hitchens' mendacious zeal as "secularist fundamentalism". I think the show fits.
Maybe, like his easily distracted countryman David Irving, Hitchens is attempting to rewrite history. Perhaps he doesn't take Jewish history seriously enough to recount it in real context and with the respect it deserves. Perhaps he could learn much from those Jews who today dutifully remember to each other those few glorious days in ancient Israel (not "Palestine") when the brave Maccabees made it known to Antiochus in no uncertain terms that his murdering thousands of observant Jews would never interrupt their obedience to the numinous intransigence of the laws of their Torah. The Maccabees are not the thugs in the story of Hanukkah, regardless Mr. Hitchens' sciolistic interpretation of their story.
Lastly, I haven't read anywhere that observant Jews disbelieve the world is "made up of atoms." On the contrary, if I remember correctly, there have been a few Orthodox Jewish physicists awarded the Nobel Prize for their work in this field of science. As for Hitchens' "intellectual renegade who prefers Athens to Jerusalem," I'm reminded of a summation of Plato and Aristotle written by Blaise Pascal, a very religious Roman Catholic and a physicist: "when they diverted themselves with writing their Laws and Politics, they did it as an amusement. That part of their life was the least philosophic and the least serious; the most philosophic was to live simply and quietly. If they wrote on politics, it was laying down rules for a lunatic asylum; and if they presented the appearance of speaking of a great matter, it was because they knew that the madmen, to whom they spoke, thought they were kings and emperors. They entered into their principles in order to make their madness as little harmful as possible." Now if only the irreligious Christopher Hitchens would consider the harm and the hurt caused by his insensitive and abrasive language. No-0ne is forcing him to light a candle, although it sounds to me like Mr. Hitchens is by far the loudest at "bitching about the darkness."
Written by Michael Devolin© Copyright 2002-2007 by Magic City Morning Star