Amir Cohen, an Israel Antiquities Authority worker displays a scroll at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem on July 20, 2015. This Biblical/Torah scroll was discovered in 1,500 year-old burnt Synagogue in 1970. – Photo courtesy of: Reuters & JewsNews
Burnt scroll found 45 years ago in archaeological excavations is oldest biblical text since Dead Sea Scrolls
by, JewsNews | h/t Billy L. Queen III
Israeli archaeologists said on Monday they had discerned biblical writing on a 1,500 year old scroll they deemed the oldest biblical text found since the Dead Sea Scrolls.
The completely charred scroll, which was found forty five years ago in archaeological excavations at Ein Gedi, on the western shore of the Dead Sea, was unveiled at the Israel Antiquities Authority Jerusalem laboratoryin the Israel Museum.
Scientists and researchers around the globe who worked over one year to decipher the biblical verses, using state of the art and advanced technologies, were surprised to find the scroll to be a 1,500 year old copy of the first eight verses of the Book of Leviticus.
“This discovery absolutely astonished us,” said Pnina Shor, curator and director of the IAA’s Dead Sea Scrolls Projects.
“We were certain it was just a shot in the dark but decided to try and scan the burnt scroll anyway. Now, not only can we bequeath the Dead Sea Scrolls to future generations, but also a part of the Bible from a Holy Ark of a 1,500-year old synagogue!”
“The knowledge that we are preserving the most important find of the 20th century and one of the western world’s most important cultural treasures causes us to proceed with the utmost care and caution and use the most advanced technologies available today,” she added.
To decipher the burnt remains, the IAA began working with Merkel Technologies Company, Ltd. Israel, which performed high resolution 3D scanning of some Dead Sea Scrolls fragments and phylactery cases via a Micro-CT scanner.
After the fragment of the Ein Gedi scroll was scanned, the IAA sent the results to Professor Brent Seales of the University of Kentucky, who developed a digital-imaging software capable of virtually unrolling the scroll and visualizing the text.
“The deciphering of the scroll, which was a puzzle for us for 45 years, is very exciting,” said Dr. Sefi Porath, who led the Ein Gedi excavations.
NOTE: This video is in Persian. The ‘context’ has been conveyed to us by a very reliable source, although we do not currently have a transcription in English. We are currently working to obtain a copy of this video with English subtitles and/or a written transcription in English. Anyone fluent in Persian & English that could assist us in this effort would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
by, Ghasedane Azadi | Freedom Messenger
Here is the message in it’s entirety;
by, European Jewish Press (EJP) | h/t Glen Roberts @ Trop
PARIS (EJP)—The National Bureau of Vigilance against Anti-Semitism (BNVCA) condemned Monday’s anti-Semitic aggression against a 13-year-old boy wearing a kippah in the 19th district of Paris.
The boy was beaten by a band of six youths described as being of ‘’African origin’’ who attacked him as he left his Jewish school.
One of the attackers shouted: ‘’Beat that dirty Jew.” Before fleeing, they stole the victim’s phone.
The Jewish boy was taken to hospital with wounds on his head.
The BNCVA, which monitors anti-Semitic incidents across the country, recommended the victim’s parents file a formal complaint and urged police authorities to find and arrest the aggressors.
by, J. Schuyler Montague | sharia unveiled
‘..Before fleeing, they stole the victim’s phone..’
The BNCVA ‘..recommended the victim’s parents file a formal complaint and urged police authorities to find and arrest the aggressors..’
Please tell me that someone was intelligent enough to track and locate the stolen mobile phone via triangulation, yielding the assailants location?!?
Saudi Arabia, Western Hypocrisy and the Rise of Islamic Terrorism
by, Mumin Salih | Islam Watch
After 9/11, America discovered that most of the terrorists were from Saudi Arabia but pretended not to notice anything. Instead of punishing the Saudis, America attacked Afghanistan and then Iraq.
Saudi Arabia has been bombing Yemen, the Arabs’ poorest nation, for nearly three months. Yemen’s only fault being its diverse population structure which worked well with them for centuries but the Saudis don’t like it anymore. Tens of thousands have been killed, injured or displaced in the country that didn’t have much to start with. The war on Yemen doesn’t even get reported by the Western media; you have to look hard and search to find something about it.
Saudi Arabia uses the Arab League as a political tool to herd the rest of the Arab states. It asked the Arab League to suspend Syria, a founding member of the league, in an unprecedented move in the history of the organisation. In a similar way, the Saudis use the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), which they created, to herd the Islamic world.
It is common knowledge that nearly all terrorist Islamic organisations enjoyed the financial or political support of Saudi Arabia, or both, yet it has never been blamed for it.
The kingdom of Saudi Arabia has become a real monster. This article is about its rise and the rise modern terrorism, as both go hand in hand.
To me, most of this history is about distant memories. As a young Arab, I also believed in the myth of Arab nationalism, just like most of my generation did. Driven by patriotism, I carefully followed that era of the Arabs’ history, almost day by day, until all my fictional world collapsed like a house of cards while I watched with disbelief. Since its creation, Saudi Arabia has been a facility that produces hate, terror and ignorance on a massive scale and, at least to me, a representation of backwardness. I am afraid that my visits to the country in later years just confirmed that negative image.
History tends to forget about Arabia. It did so for thousands of years until the rise of Islam in the seventh century. Even with such a powerful stimulus, Arabia only managed to awake up for less than fifty years before it went again into its deep sleep. By the reign of Uthman, the third rightly guided caliph, the balance of power shifted to Damascus and then to Baghdad.
Ibn Saud meets Ibn Abdul Wahhab
For all the centuries since the rise of Islam, the desert of Arabia was available for occupation or colonisation but no one was interested. The only wars the beduins of Arabia had to fight were the wars against each other, and there were plenty of those wars. In the eighteenth century those wars were mainly between the Saudi tribe under the leadership of Mohammed Ibn Saud’s and their adversaries from other tribes. In his excellent book, The Hatred’s Kingdom, Dore Gold puts an estimate of nearly half a million people who were slaughtered as a result of the Saudi wars for dominance. An alliance with another religious warrior, Mohammed Ibn Abdul Wahhab proved to be vital to the success of Ibn Saud campaign. Abdul Wahhab was a strict Muslim warrior with no tolerance to those who disagreed with him. The agreement between the two men gave the political leadership to the Saudis and the religious leadership to the Wahhabis. The alliance is still a key to understanding how the country being run today.
The Third Saudi State – the Kingdom:
The Saudis succeeded twice in creating a state in the nineteenth century, in both cases the states were crushed soon afterwards. The first state was a nuisance to the Ottomans who asked Mohammed Ali of Egypt to deal with them, which he did and nearly annihilated the Saudis in 1816. The second state was defeated by rival tribes and the Saudis were forced to flee and seek asylum in Kuwait. Abdul Aziz was only twenty one years when he became the Saudi tribe’s leader in 1902. He made many military successes thanks to the support of the the ‘Brothers’ (the Ikhwan), which was a Wahhabi armed Islamic group. The British were also behind Abdul Aziz and provided him with much needed financial and military help to conquer the Al Rashid tribe and to occupy the Eastern province, which was then part of the Ottoman Empire. Abdul Aziz then turned his attention to the west and conquered Nejd and then Hijaz which was ruled by the pro British Hashemite tribe. For the sake of politics, having been pro British didn’t make much difference to the British government. In 1932, all present day Saudi Arabia was united under the leadership of Abdul Aziz, who proclaimed himself as the king of the desert kingdom which he named after his tribe. The British help to Abdul Aziz came at a time when Winston Churchill was already an influential figure in British politics and many years after he wrote his famous quote about Mohammedanism (1).
The Western role was not limited to helping the birth of the new kingdom but continued to be essential for its survival. The birth of the desert kingdom coincided with two important developments: the birth of the other Ikhwan group, the current Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt in 1928 and the discovery of oil ten years later. With wealth, thirst for power, religious zealous and unconditional Western support, the stage was perfectly set for the desert kingdom to become the main political player in the Middle East. Suddenly, history remembered Arabia and Abdul Aziz became a sought after king that world leaders seek to meet with. Indeed, towards the end of WWII, Both Churchill and FD Roosevelt met with the King in Egypt and aboard the USS Quincy respectively. Those meetings laid down the basis of the Western relations with the emerging Islamic power. We don’t know the details of those meetings but we know well that the two leaders were the most powerful men on earth and certainly more than capable to force their own terms on a tribe’s leader whom they helped to become a king. Well, it doesn’t look that way, unless their own terms happened to match the Saudi’s terms.
It is remarkable that the relationship between the West and Saudi Arabia has always been exceptionally good since the establishment of the kingdom. There was no time when the two sides were in disagreement or their relations were bad, even after 9/11. However, the role of Saudi Arabia as a major player in Middle Eastern politics suddenly came to a halt, not because of the wishes of the Western powers but against those wishes. Saudi Arabia was sidelined for nearly two decades because of another development in another Middle Eastern country – Egypt.
The Nasser years
Gamal Abdul Nasser came to power in Egypt through a military coup in 1952. Despite his socialist policies he was anti communist and started with a friendly relations with the Muslim Brotherhood. Nasser was a charismatic leader who inspired a generation of Arabs and revolutionaries of his time, like Castro and Nelson Mandela. He had big plans for his country including land reforms and an ambitious large scale industrialisation program that required the building of a massive dam across the river Nile. More importantly he was an Arab nationalist who opposed colonialism and supported independence movements in different parts of the world. The Muslim Brotherhood soon turned against him as it became clear to them that he was not the kind of leader who will be told what to do. After escaping an assassination attempt in 1954, Nasser cracked down on the Brotherhood movement and many of its members fled the country to enjoy the hospitality of Saudi Arabia and the West. They were encouraged to continue their activities; their journal and mouth piece “al Muslimoon” started to be published from Switzerland. The journal was edited by Sa’eed Ramadan, who was one of their leaders who lived in Switzerland where he raised his son Tariq Ramadan, who became another mouth piece for the movement.
As a co-founder of the non allied movement, Nasser opposed the post war American plans to force the Arab countries to join American linked alliances such as the CENTO or the Baghdad Alliance in the 1950s. The Baghdad Alliance was not a great success and America wasn’t amused. In1965, king Faisal of Saudi Arabia supported by the shah of Iran called upon the Islamic world to come together under a pro American Islamic alliance. Those were the days when the Shia of Iran were perfect Muslims but the sunni Egyptians were kuffar! Nasser opposed the idea of the Islamic alliance and the project never came to existence. However, the organisation of Islamic conference (OIC) was formed a few years later, which is still a very important political tool in the hands of Saudi Arabia.
The declared reasons for the Saudi opposition to Nasser were based, of course, on religion. They claimed that socialism was kufr, therefore, must be fought by all means. In reality, they didn’t like Nasser because his popularity and influence stood in their way. They plotted to assassinate the young president but those plots failed, however, getting rid of Nasser became an obsession to both the Saudis and the Brotherhood movement.
Nasser’s nationalist’s propaganda had some receptive ears in the closely guarded kingdom, which resulted in some high level defections. Army officers, fighter pilots, even some of the king’s brothers rebelled against him and defected to Egypt in 1962. The stability of the kingdom was further undermined by the ongoing power struggle between King Saud and his brother Faisal. The relations between the two brothers deteriorated further and the King was forced to abdicate in 1964 and sought refuge in Egypt, where he lived under the rule of the man he plotted to kill. For a while, Nasser appeared to be unstoppable but his increasing influence sounded an alarm to act urgently to have him removed. Indeed, soon it was Nasser’s regime which was undermined as the Egyptian leader became increasingly surrounded by corrupt aides and spies, even within his own family.
Faisal, the King of Terror
I believe that Faisal stands out among the Saudi leaders as the most evil of all. Although Islamic terrorism, in the sense and scale we know it today, was not known to the world in his life, it was his policies that laid down the firm foundations of Islamic terror. It is important to emphasise that terrorism didn’t come as a byproduct of his policies because it was the intended product.Faisal literally embodied the marriage between the Saudis and Wahhabism; his father was a Saudi and his mother was a Wahhabi of Al elsheikh tribe, the descendants of Mohammed Ibn Abdul Wahhab. Faisal had big plans in his mind and couldn’t wait for his brother to die so he conspired against him and had him removed while outside the country for medical treatment. King Saud was bad but not bad enough in Faisal’s standards. Faisal believed that for the kingdom to achieve its political potential, Nasser needed to go and he didn’t think his brother knew how to do it. Nasser considerably younger than Faisal; waiting for his natural death was not an option to the new king.
Faisal was very influential even before he became a king. In 1961, and in one of their worst blunders, the Egyptians sent a military help to the newly formed republican regime in Yemen. The Saudis seized the opportunity and provided the deposed monarch (called the Imam) with all the military and financial support required to drag the Egyptian army into a lengthy and costly guerrilla war. Interestingly, the deposed Imam, which the Saudis wanted to put back in power, had similar religious and ethnic background to the Houthis, which the Saudis have been fighting for three months to remove from power!
Faisal was behind establishing the Islamic University of Medina, which recruited leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood from all over the Muslim countries. The well known Pakistani scholar, Al Mawdudi, who was a big name in the brotherhood, was in charge of the university. The well funded university became a centre of extremism as its radical staff had free hands to teach, publish and promote Wahhabism. The Muslim libraries were flooded with books that sing the same tune, the Wahhabi tune. The previously unknown scholar Ibn Taymeyyia (1263-1328) started to become a household name.
Faisal was also behind establishing The Muslim World League, which was an even more remarkable project. The league started as a small and largely unknown organisation in the 1960s but within a decade it became a monstrous multi billion dollars global organisation. It is divided into some twenty divisions, each a massive organisation on its own right. Those divisions take care of all Muslims’ needs such as promoting Islamic education, Islamic finance, halal food and promoting the myth of scientific miracles in the Quran… you name it.
Although the above two institutions were created in 1961/1962 but both remained largely dormant for nearly a decade. The time was not right yet to release their full potential.
In a letter to president Johnson in 1966, king Faisal urged the American president to take action to bring an end to Nasser and his regime (2). The 1967 war was not an accidental war; it was a well planned trap to force Nasser to fight a war he cannot win, especially with a big chunk of his army fighting another war in Yemen. The war was a humiliating defeat to Nasser and the Saudi’s long awaited objective of getting rid of him seemed to have been accomplished. Indeed, in a live radio broadcast to the nation, Nasser accepted responsibility and announced his resignation. However, the Egyptians went immediately to the streets in a hysterical move to demand that he stays to rebuild the army, which he did.
Despite the humiliating defeat, Nasser was still very much the ‘leader’ in the Arab world whose approval was necessary on Middle Eastern issues. His international standing wasn’t affected either. It may have looked as if the Saudis were in for a long wait before they unleash their Islam to the Arabs and the world. It only ‘looked’ that way because in September 1970 Nasser died suddenly at the of age 52; with his death, the world entered a new dark phase – the Islamic phase (3).
Nasser died of heart attack, which was not surprising for a hard working diabetic man. The cause of death started to be questioned in recent years in the light of emerging evidence pointing at a planned assassination. If indeed that was the case, I would be surprised if the Saudis were not involved.
Sadat, the Believer President
Anwar Sadat succeeded Nasser and reversed all of his policies, which was a bizarre move from a politician who was responsible of those policies. As a result, Egypt became pro American and was reduced to only a tool in the hands of Saudi Arabia. The Islamists were released from jails and granted platforms in the press and influence in the the universities and Islamic institutions. The largest Arab nation, and once the most progressive, was radicalised within a decade. At last, all the Islamists’ prayers were answered.
Sadat briefly joined the Muslim Brotherhood as a young man. He joined the army as an officer and worked as a spy for the Nazi army in North Africa in WWII, which lead to his imprisonment by the British authorities in Egypt. He continued to be a fan of Hitler and wrote in his praise even after the 1952 military coup which brought him to government. Being in charge of the Yemen file in 1961, he was the one behind the ill fated decision of sending troops to help the military coup.
Sadat assumed the unofficial title of “the president who is a believer” despite drinking whisky in a show of westernisation to his western guests. He famously became one of the first Egyptians to develop the skin mark called zabibah. This is a dark mark that appears on the skin where the forehead comes in contact with the floor during sujud (prostration) part of prayers. It is a sign (or supposed to be a sign) of excessive prayers and its presence supposedly indicates that the person is a devout Muslim. Verse Q. 48:29 describes the believers as : “… their mark is on their faces from the trace of prostration…” (..سيماهم في وجوههم…) The zabiba was a common sight in Egypt in the 1980s and 1990s and then its appearance started to decline as ordinary Egyptians became aware of its true nature. In reality the zabiba is a sign that the person is a plain liar. It only appeared on Egyptian men (not women) and there is no report that Mohammed developed a zabiba, neither did any of his companions.
Sadat’s vulnerability didn’t go unnoticed by the Saudi Intelligence service and the CIA. It is believed that he was recruited in the 1960s and received regular income from the Saudis . He was killed in 1981 by the very Islamists he unleashed to the world.
With the fall of Egypt, the Saudis had access to treasures of resources like the well developed media and the human expertise to run them. They also had Al Azhar and its institutions on their side. Only ten years earlier, Al Azhar went through a massive modernisation program. Its university started to teach western sciences and, for the first time, to accept girls in its classes. Most of the staff of the new look university (and all of the students) were western looking. Girls were dressed just like in other universities – no hijab (today, they are still dressed like girls in other universities – all with hijab). All these reformations were reversed, thanks to the Saudi influence. With the members of the Muslim Brotherhood out of jail, the Saudis had everything they needed to start their global Islamisation program.
The Global Islamisation
Back in the 1970’s. King Faisal made use of the desire of some Europeans, especially the French, to form some kind of alliance with the Arabs and Muslims. The French were motivated by a feeling of being left out by the Americans and a desire to create a political entity independent from America. They expressed their readiness to open Europe to Muslims, welcome their culture and treat them preferentially. This is a fact not fiction or a conspiracy theory. Mohammed Hasanain Haikal is the most renowned Arab journalist with connections to officials and leaders around the world. His writings have always been taken seriously. He wrote that back in the 1970s he had a series of meetings with French officials who told him that France has already signed a treaty with Saudi Arabia to promote Islam and introduce it to Europe (4). Apparently Haikal mentioned this information in one of his books in the 1970s, long before other authors wrote about Eurabia. The European Arab Dialogue (EAD) was established to manage the new changes in the fabric of Europe.
In the 1970s there was a sharp rise in the price of oil, generating even more cash to the Saudis and increasing King Faisal’s spending power. The various organisations of the Muslim World League (MWL) embarked into a global Islamisation program that started in Europe but slowly spread in all directions. There was a sharp increase in the number of mosques and Islamic Centres as well as Islamic schools. The Western universities and academics proved to be easy preys to the well funded International Commission of Scientific Signs in the Quran and Sunna. This organisation cleverly exploited the vulnerability, and sometimes gullibility, of the Western academia to build an enormous mythical concept that helped to deceive converts and retain existing Muslims. They indirectly influenced top western universities by generous donations and funding new projects or sponsoring academic chairs. If you wonder how Tariq Ramadan was given a chair at Oxford university think of the influence of the MWL. Western academics were regularly invited to lavish scientific conferences that usually included a paper or two on the Muslims’ contribution in the field and perhaps some related “miracles” in the Quran or sunna.
We must keep in mind that an important part of the global Islamisation takes place within the kingdom. Over the years, tens of millions of non Saudis workers were subjected to extensive and regular brainwashing. The process takes place in schools, universities, work, mosques, shopping centres.. you name it. It is an efficient process that produces results; it is common for non practicing Muslims to return home fully Islamised after only one year work. Also many non Muslims convert to Islam as a result of this policy.
King Faisal was killed in 1975 but his legacy lived on. The Islamisation process received an extra boost after the Islamic revolution in Iran and its initial positive impact on the Arabs. The first large scale Islamic jihad was declared against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, of course with American support (and request). Young Arabs were brain washed, charged and recruited to fight what was perceived as an atheist invasion of a Muslim land. With eight Muslim republics already within the borders of the Soviet Union, the worry about Afghanistan was difficult to understand. The Mujahidon of Afghanistan were created by America and Saudi Arabia, staffed by the Muslim Brotherhood and glorified by the Western media. Most of the so called Arab Afghans were from the fully Islamised Egypt. The Mujahidon were terrorists just like Al Qaeda (which originated from them) but the western media ignored reporting their atrocities. Taliban was also created by Saudi Arabia and staffed by the graduates of the Saudi funded Islamic schools. The role of the Pakistani Intelligence was to manage and facilitate its formation. The fact that Taliban was recognized by only Saudi Arabia and two of its allies, Pakistan and the Emirates, says it all. In fact, nearly all of the Islamic terrorists organisations, including ISIS, were inspired by wahhabism and enjoyed the Saudi support and money, at least at some stage.
The Saudi funding of extremism and terror did not stop at government level. Islamic charities and Zakat money total to billions of dollars most of which is used in funding jihad in one place or the other. I happened to be in Saudi Arabia in 1994 and was amazed at the extensive effort that was put to make people donate to support the Bosnian war. Newspapers, radio, TV, mosques loud speakers, shopping centres.. it was impossible to avoid it. Nearly all zakat money paid by Saudis and Muslim employees working in the kingdom were used to fund the Bosnian jihad. The relevant WML organisations make sure that Muslims around the world do exactly the same as those in Saudi Arabia.
1. Winston Churchill wrote: “How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.”.
2. 1995, كتاب (عقود من الخيبات) للكاتب /حمدان حمدان, p. 489-491
Saudi Government Document 342, date 27 Dec. 1966
Statement comes ahead of UN report, which is expected to accuse Israel of war crimes
by, Abraham Rabinovich | The Washington Free Beacon
JERUSALEM—A former commander of the German army and 10 other former generals and officials from four continents who investigated the human rights aspect of last summer’s war in Gaza have concluded that Israel scrupulously adhered to the laws of war.
Their statement was released over the weekend, in anticipation of the release by the UN’s Human Rights Council (UNHRC) of a report, which is expected to accuse Israel of war crimes in the conflict.
The foreign group was led by Gen. Klaus Naumann, former chief of staff of the Bundeswehr and former chairman of NATO’s Military Committee. The panel conducted a week-long fact-finding visit to Israel last month at the initiative of a pro-Israel group.
“Each of our own armies is committed to protecting civilian life during combat,” the report, which was submitted to the UNHRC, said. “None of us is aware of any army that takes such extensive measures as did the IDF last summer to protect the lives of the civilian population in such circumstances. Israel not only met international standards in observing the laws of armed conflict but in many cases significantly exceeded that standard.”
Acknowledging that some Palestinian deaths were caused by Israeli errors of judgment, the panel of generals declared that Palestinian militants “as the aggressors and the users of human shields” were responsible for the overwhelming majority of civilian deaths in Gaza.
Israel regards the UNHRC, which has frequently targeted Israel, as “obsessively” hostile and has refused to cooperate with its current investigation.
In a preemptive move, the Israeli government published its own report on the war Sunday, which noted that 4,000 of the 4,500 rockets and mortar shells fired by Hamas and other militant groups from Gaza during the 50 days of fighting were aimed at civilian targets. Hundreds of these rounds, it said, were fired from civilian compounds containing schools, mosques, and UN facilities.
The 250-page report said the Israeli army was unique in assigning military lawyers to the combat commanders “to ascertain that they act in accordance with international law.” Firing missions are scrapped if the lawyers deem that they are illegal targets as defined by the Law of Armed Conflict.
Militants in Gaza are accused by Israel of deliberately basing themselves in residential areas. Israel has made it a practice during its recurring wars with Hamas to telephone residents of houses that are targeted and advise them to evacuate immediately.
Some 2,100 Gazans and 70 Israelis were killed in the fighting. Israel claims 44 percent of identified Palestinian casualties were militants. The Palestinians claim the overwhelming majority of those killed were civilians.
The report, drawn up by the Israeli Foreign Ministry, said Hamas’ strategy was to deliberately draw the fighting into urban areas both for tactical advantage and for the political gain from civilian casualties.
The UNHRC is expected to release its report this week. The original head of the committee’s investigation, Canadian legal expert William Schabas, resigned after Israel accused him of anti-Israel bias. His replacement is American jurist Mary McGowan Davis.
by, Dennis Prager | Town Hall
What do anti-Semitism, racism and Islamophobia have in common?
In fact, nothing.
But according to Islamist groups, Western media and the United Nations, they have everything in common. Anti-Semites hate all Jews, racists hate all members of another race, and Islamophobes hates all Muslims.
Whoever coined the term “Islamophobia” was quite shrewd. Notice the intellectual sleight of hand here. The term is not “Muslim-phobia” or “anti-Muslimist,” it is Islam-ophobia — fear of Islam — yet fear of Islam is in no way the same as hatred of all Muslims. One can rightly or wrongly fear Islam, or more usually, aspects of Islam, and have absolutely no bias against all Muslims, let alone be a racist.
The equation of Islamophobia with racism is particularly dishonest. Muslims come in every racial group, and Islam has nothing to do with race. Nevertheless, mainstream Western media, Islamist groups calling themselves Muslim civil liberties groups and various Western organizations repeatedly declare that Islamophobia is racism.
To cite three of innumerable examples: The Guardian published an opinion piece titled, “Islamophobia should be as unacceptable as racism”; the European Union has established the European Monitoring Center for Racism and Xenophobia; and the B’nai B’rith Anti-Defamation Commission of Australia notes that “Muslims have also been the target of racism in Australia, often referred to as Islamophobia.”
Even granting that there are people who fear Islam, how does that in any way correlate with racism? If fear of an ideology rendered one racist, all those who fear conservatism or liberalism should be considered racist.
Of course, some may argue that whereas conservatism and liberalism are ideas, Islam is a religion, and while one can attack ideas, one must not attack religions. It is, however, quite insulting to religions to deny that they are ideas. Religions are certainly more than ideas — they are theological belief systems — but they are also ideas about how society should be run just as much as liberalism and conservatism are. Therefore, Islam, or Christianity, or Judaism, or Buddhism should be just as subject to criticism as conservatism or liberalism.
However, the only religion the West permits criticism of is Christianity. People write books, give lectures and conduct seminars on the falsity of Christian claims, or on the immoral record of Christianity, and no one attacks them for racism or bigotry, let alone attacks them physically. The head of the Anti-Defamation League announces that conservative Christians are the greatest threat to America today, and no one charges him with racism or Christianophobia.
The statement may be an expression of hysteria and of ignorance, but not of racism. But if one says that Islam does not appear compatible with democracy or that the Islamic treatment of women is inferior to the West’s, he or she is labeled a racist Islamophobe.
One might counter that maligning people for criticism is not only true of those who criticize Islam, it is also true of critics of Israel and of America — the former, it is said, are immediately labeled “anti-Semitic” and the latter are immediately labeled “unpatriotic.” Neither is true at all. Both are, and I use this word rarely, lies.
No one is labeled anti-Semitic for merely criticizing Israel. People are labeled anti-Semitic for denying Israel’s right to exist, for siding with those who wish to exterminate it or for singling out the Jewish state alone among all the nations of the world for attacks that most other countries deserve far more.
And no one in any responsible capacity has called anyone “unpatriotic” just for criticizing America. Sen. Hillary Clinton claimed during the last Democratic presidential debate that the Defense Department called her “unpatriotic” for asking whether the Defense Department has a plan to withdraw American troops from Iraq. Yet the term “unpatriotic” was not only not used in the response to the senator, it was not even hinted at.
The fact remains that the term “Islamophobia” has one purpose — to suppress any criticism, legitimate or not, of Islam. And given the cowardice of the Western media, and the collusion of the left in banning any such criticism (while piling it on Christianity and Christians), it is working.
Latest proof: This past week a man in New York was charged with two felonies for what is being labeled the hate crime of putting a Koran in a toilet at Pace College. Not misdemeanors, mind you, felonies. Meanwhile, the man who put a crucifix in a jar of urine continues to have his artwork — “Piss Christ” — displayed at galleries and museums. A Koran in a toilet is a hate crime; a crucifix in pee is a work of art. Thanks in part to that brilliant term, “Islamophobia.”
Video courtesy of: CAIRtv
The outline below contains the answers to the very questions Muhammad did not want his followers to know. Namely that Islam is a sanitized version of ancient polytheistic moon worship which he invented to exercise military control.
by, Sanjay Rai | h/t John Tanguay
Does the Qur’an define the word “Allah”? No.
Was the name “Allah” revealed for the first time in the Qur’an? No
Does the Qur’an assume that its readers have already heard of “Allah”? Yes
Should we look into pre-Islamic Arabian history to see who “Allah” was before Muhammad? Yes.
According to Muslim tradition, was Muhammad born into a Christian family and tribe? No
Was he born into a Jewish family or tribe? No
What religion was his family and tribe? Pagans
What was the name of his pagan father? Abdullah (Abd + Allah)
Did Muhammad participate in the pagan ceremonies of Mecca? Yes
Did the Arabs in pre-Islamic times worship 360 gods? Yes
Did the Pagan Arabs worship the sun, moon and the stars? Yes
Did the Arabs build temples to the Moon-god? Yes
Did different Arab tribes give the Moon-god different names/titles? Yes
What were some of the names/titles? Sin, Hubul, Ilumquh, Al-ilah.
Was the title “al-ilah” (the god) used of the Moon-god? Yes
Was the word “Allah” derived from “al-ilah?” Yes
Was the pagan “Allah” a high god in a pantheon of deities? Yes.
Was he worshipped at the Kabah? Yes.
Was Allah only one of many Meccan gods? Yes
Did they place a statue of Hubul on top of the Kabah? Yes.
At that time was Hubul considered the Moon-god? Yes.
Was the Kabah thus the “house of the Moon-god”? Yes.
Did the name “Allah” eventually replace that of Hubul as the name of the Moon god? Yes.
Did they call the Kabah the “house of Allah”? Yes
Did the pagans develop religious rites in connection with the worship of their gods? Yes.
Did the pagans practice the Pilgrimage, the Fast of Ramadan, running around the Kabah seven times, kissing the black stone, shaving the head, animal sacrifices, running up and down two hills, throwing stones at the devil, snorting water in and out the nose, praying several times a day toward Mecca, giving alms, Friday prayers, etc.? Yes.
Did Muhammad command his followers to participate in these pagan ceremonies while the pagans were still in control of Mecca? Yes (Yusuf Ali, fn. 214, pg. 78).
Did Islam go on to adopt these pagan religious rites? Yes. (Yusuf Ali: fn. 223 pg. 80).
Were al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat called “the daughters of Allah”? Yes.
Did the Qur’an at one point tell Muslims to worship al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat? Yes. In Surah 53:19-20.
Have those verses been “abrogated” out of the present Qur’an? Yes.
What were they called? “The Satanic Verses.” Yes.
Was the crescent moon an ancient pagan symbol of the Moon-god throughout the ancient world? Yes.
Was it the religious symbol of the Moon-god in Arabia? Yes
Were stars also used as pagan symbols of the daughers of Allah? Yes
Did the Jews or the Christians of Arabia use the crescent moon with several stars next to it as symbols of their faith? No
Did Islam adopt the pagan crescent moon and stars as it religious symbol? Yes.
As Islam developed over the centuries, did it adopt pagan names, pagan ceremonies, pagan temples and pagan symbols? Yes
Is it possible that most Muslims do not know the pagan sources of the symbols and rites of their own religion? Yes.
Are they shocked to find out the true sources of their ceremonies and stories? Yes
Can Islam be the religion of Abraham if it is derived from paganism? No
What then is Islam? A modern version of one of the ancient fertility cults.
Is the “Allah” of the Qur’an, the Christian God of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? No
Do the Jews say that the Muslim “Allah” is their God too? No
Then who’s god is Allah? Paganism.
– Sanjay Rai