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

Islam Is Not an Island

From Magic City Morning Star
Michael Devolin

Islam Is Not an Island

By Michael Devolin

Immediately I read in the National Post about a young Muslim girl being strangled by her Muslim father, I anticipated the usual laboured efforts of Islam's apologists and Canada's many obtuse multiculturalists to exculpate the religion of Islam and instead blame it all on bad old human nature. Although Ms. Parvez's was strangled because she refused to wear the Muslim hijab, although the alleged perpetrators of this crime were both Muslim, although this dress code is a part of Pakistan's Muslim culture, Shahina Siddiqui, of the Islamic Social Services Association, promises a horrified Canada that this homicide is "the result of domestic violence, a problem that cuts across Canadian society and is blind to colour or creed."
It should be obvious to all ordinary Canadians that Shahina Siddiqui is deliberately obfuscating the historical fact that Islam's religious violence has nothing to do with colour and everything to do with Islam's impetuous creed. This is the same religion whose Sudanese followers demanded hundreds of lashes and even the sentence of death for a British non-Muslim teacher who happened to name a teddy bear "Mohammed." For the life of me, I cannot fathom why naming a teddy bear, a lifeless toy, Mohammed is offensive, but naming so many of Islam's sons Mohammed, some of whom actually behave as though their terrorist acts speak with as much authority as the Prophet himself, is not. Personally, I'd be more discomposed by the irreparable damage these frenzied religious have already done to Islam's reputation than the innocuous and motherly behaviour of a dedicated and loving British teacher toward Muslim children. It should be (and probably is) obvious to all ordinary Canadians that a Muslim father strangling his Muslim daughter for refusing to wear the Muslim hijab in public is most certainly the result of the Muslim culture taught him in the Muslim country from where he emigrated.
Jasmine Zine, a sociology professor at Wilfred Laurier University, has determined that "Muslim girls in Canada are struggling to reconcile Muslim traditions with more secular Western behaviour." Apparently Prof. Zine summates that, compared to Muslims, the behaviour of Western Jews and Christians is "more secular" simply by virtue of their appearance. Obviously, Jews and Christians need to behead a few innocent aid workers in Iraq, or maybe explode themselves in the midst of a few hundred Russian school children in Beslan to be acknowledged as "religious" instead of the wishy-washy "secular". Prof. Zine's estimation is simply another example of Western academia's many blundered attempts to portray the very violent behaviour of so many religious Muslims as no different from the good behaviour of so many religious Jews and Christians. In the case of Ms. Parvez, Prof. Zine makes great effort to equate the regressively brutal cultures of Islam with the tolerant and progressive cultures of Christianity and Judaism. As for "competing cultural demands," it appears to me that the only competing culture is Islam's, and the only demands being made are Islam's.
Prof. Zine laments that Muslim girls "dress in one manner at home and another at school." This has been-in an entirely different context, mind you-the practice of Islam's terrorists too. This was the point I made at the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission in regards to those Muslims employed by McMaster University who emigrated from Muslim countries where the veridical efficacy of the religion of Islam has produced cultures of violence and anti-Jewish/anti-Western hatred. I do not believe for a moment that such hatreds are extirpated immediately these Muslim immigrants depart their respective Islamic country of origin for the Western world's democracies. As Mark Steyn wrote, "Islam is a religion and an explicitly political one-unlike the birthplace of your grandfather, it's not something you leave behind in the old country. Indeed, for many of its adherents in the West, it becomes their principle expression-a pan-Islamic identity that transcends borders."
Barbara Kay titled a recent article, 'How Canada let Aqsa down.' I totally disagree. Islam let Aqsa Parvez down. And Islam gets away with this let down simply because Western journalists and Western academia have not the courage to point out the fact that whenever these brutal cultural anomalies are exposed in Western societies, the religion of Islam is, in every case, a part of the ugly picture. Our mistake is that we continually and injudiciously blame our human nature as a means of exculpating the religion of Islam.
John Donne wrote, "No man is an island, entire of itself." Well, hey, the same applies to the religion of Islam. Islam is not an island separate from those zealots who act out its malefic ideology. It was not domestic violence that robbed Aqsa Parvez of her life; it was the religion of Islam. It is the religion of Islam that threatens Canada and Canadians, not the terrorists who act out its tenets. Until Islam is properly and honestly identified by the Canadian justice system as the insalubrious ideology spurring animals like Mohammed Parvez to murder his own daughter, we cannot expect a cessation or abating of such familial brutality within our borders. Moreover, if the religion of Islam ever arrogates to its litigious zealots a majority vote in Canada's future elections, whether provincial or federal, we can expect far worse.
"Don't think there are no crocodiles because the water is calm." -Malaysian proverb© Copyright 2002-2007 by Magic City Morning Star

Democracy Without Islam

Democracy Without Islam

By Michael Devolin
Sep 12, 2007 - 8:31:16 PM


In her book Infidel, Ayaan Hirsi Ali writes, "Shouldn't the places where Allah was worshipped and His laws obeyed have been at peace and wealthy, and the unbelievers' countries ignorant, poor, and at war." This is a point of truth Islam's apologists will not touch with a ten foot pole. Of course, in their feverish imposture and denigration of the West, of Israel and her Jews, these apologists haven't scheduled for such bulldozing knowledge. They have failed to comprehend that the West's foreseeable rejection of Islam is not only a consequence of Islam's predictable terrorism and violence, but also our instinctual habit of preservation: We have by now noticed that the average Muslim is not integrating into our culture but only insofar as is necessary for him to exploit the compassionate infrastructures that welcome him into our reasonable world. We have by now become anxious about the intelligible possibility that our beloved Western freedoms and religious liberties will soon be transmogrified and extirpated by Islam's malefic, exponential and insular presence within our borders.
Samuel P. Huntington posits to his trembling students that, "The decline of the West is still in the slow first phase, but at some point it might speed up dramatically." Well, aside from a burning desire to tell Mr. Huntington that he can kiss my Irish-Canadian ass, I am also keen to inform him that the West is not finished. Not yet. Not by a long shot. Western intelligence agencies are well aware of Islam's bludgeoning of our "system" and our accommodative culture. Many of Islam's proponents, whether terrorists or apologists (is there a difference?) are well aware of our cognizance of their exploitation and hatred of our non-Islamic democracy and its Judeo-Christian social appendages, such as "Welfare" and "Immigration". They simply believe (but for entirely different reasons) as Samuel P. Huntington and all his lemming-minded, broken-hearted friends believe-- that the West is on a journey into extinction.
In his provocative book America Alone, Mark Steyn warns the West that our contest with Islam is merely a matter of demographics. He rightly warns that Muslim families are reproducing at higher percentages than non-Muslim families. Oriana Fallaci's controversial statement that Muslims "breed like rats" is, as one would expect from such a brave soul, based on statistical truth. It is by now evident to all who have been following the blood trail of Mohammedanism that this religion and its adherents have envisioned for themselves (whether non-Muslims like it or not) a world ruled by a caliphal Islam.
Democracy is not palatable to Islam's angry clerics unless of course it is a democracy actualized by a majority Muslim electorate. Ajai Sahni related to this pernicious strategy when he wrote of the Muslim populations of Junagadh and Hyderbad, that they believed "they have a natural constituency." Daniel Pipes' high-flying accolades for the "democracy" now being fabricated by the pro-Islamic voters in Turkey is yet another of his sciolistic and ludicrously odd constructs of a democracy that will never exist save in the mind of sycophantic fools like himself. Simply put, a democracy created by a Muslim electorate-as exampled by Hamas' election victory in Gaza-is not a democracy at all but rather the end of democracy and the beginning of a terrorist state. As Huntington so rightly put it, "In Islam, Caesar is God."
Written by Michael Devolin© Copyright 2002-2007 by Magic City Morning Star