My name is Fred and I am a gay conservative living in Ottawa. This blog supports limited government, the right of the State of Israel to live in peace and security, and tries to expose the threat to us all from cultural relativism, post-modernism, and radical Islam. I am also the founder of the Free Thinking Film Society in Ottawa (

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

Hitchens on the ground zero mosque....

More wisdom from Hitch...
From the beginning, though, I pointed out that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf was no great bargain and that his Cordoba Initiative was full of euphemisms about Islamic jihad and Islamic theocracy. I mentioned his sinister belief that the United States was partially responsible for the assault on the World Trade Center and his refusal to take a position on the racist Hamas dictatorship in Gaza. The more one reads through his statements, the more alarming it gets. For example, here is Rauf's editorial on the upheaval that followed the brutal hijacking of the Iranian elections in 2009. Regarding President Obama, he advised that:
He should say his administration respects many of the guiding principles of the 1979 revolution—to establish a government that expresses the will of the people; a just government, based on the idea of Vilayet-i-faquih, that establishes the rule of law.
Coyly untranslated here (perhaps for "outreach" purposes), Vilayet-i-faquih is the special term promulgated by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to describe the idea that all of Iranian society is under the permanent stewardship (sometimes rendered as guardianship) of the mullahs. Under this dispensation, "the will of the people" is a meaningless expression, because "the people" are the wards and children of the clergy. It is the justification for a clerical supreme leader, whose rule is impervious to elections and who can pick and choose the candidates and, if it comes to that, the results. It is extremely controversial within Shiite Islam. (Grand Ayatollah Sistani in Iraq, for example, does not endorse it.) As for those numerous Iranians who are not Shiites, it reminds them yet again that they are not considered to be real citizens of the Islamic Republic.

I do not find myself reassured by the fact that Imam Rauf publicly endorses the most extreme and repressive version of Muslim theocracy. The letterhead of the statement, incidentally, describes him as the Cordoba Initiative's "Founder and Visionary." Why does that not delight me, either?

Emboldened by the crass nature of the opposition to the center, its defenders have started to talk as if it represented no problem at all and as if the question were solely one of religious tolerance. It would be nice if this were true. But tolerance is one of the first and most awkward questions raised by any examination of Islamism. We are wrong to talk as if the only subject was that of terrorism. As Western Europe has already found to its cost, local Muslim leaders have a habit, once they feel strong enough, of making demands of the most intolerant kind. Sometimes it will be calls for censorship of anything "offensive" to Islam. Sometimes it will be demands for sexual segregation in schools and swimming pools. The script is becoming a very familiar one. And those who make such demands are of course usually quite careful to avoid any association with violence. They merely hint that, if their demands are not taken seriously, there just might be a teeny smidgeon of violence from some other unnamed quarter.


Blogger trencherbone said...

Child rape, torture and murder cover-up...

Next week is the sixth anniversary of the Islamic child-rape and torture orgy and massacre in the school at Beslan . Yet for six years the mainstream media have covered up what happened and who was responsible, with all mention of Muslims being censored.
This is of particular concern because there is some evidence that jihadists are planning similar attacks against American schools.

So it's time to set the record straight, not only about the identity of these sadistic murderous savages, but also about the Islamic ideology that approves of pedophilic attacks on children as a way of getting at their 'najis kafir' parents. (All non-Muslims - Christians, Jews, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, Pagans, Atheists etc are 'najis' - literally 'filth'.)

Of course every culture produces rapists and child molesters, but in non-Muslim societies these are usually isolated loners. In contrast, Muslim rapists and pedophiles are well-organised, and these predators often hunt their prey in rape-gangs in a tradition of Muslim razzia going back to the 'prophet'. The reason for this cultural difference is that pedophilia and rape are abhorrent in civilised societies, but are socially acceptable to Muslim communities because the perps are dutifully following Mohammed's example - and Mohammed is the 'Perfect Man': a pedophile, torturer, rapist and mass-murderer.

Child-rape, as well as being a permitted means of satisfying the jihadists' religiously repressed lusts, also degrades, violates and humiliates the hated 'najis kafir' children and their parents, thus asserting the supremacy of Islam and Muslims.

Of course not all Muslims do this sort of thing, no more than they all plant bombs. However all Muslims (presumably including the 'peaceful' Ground Zero Sufis) revere Mohammed as the 'Perfect Man' and role model, and as such have no religious or moral doubts about ANY course of action that increases the power of Islam.

Could everyone please use their blogs, networks and forums to ensure that this horrendous Islamic attack is not airbrushed out of history by the MSM. Full details:

4:38 PM  
Blogger John McAdams said...

Here is my take on this:

It's not identical to that of Hitchens, but close.

12:37 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home