Friday, February 15, 2008

Let them kafirs eat cake (2)

Here is a story and analysis from Lawrence Auster on another Muslim who feeds infidels shit.

I get much delight from looking up and sorting through graphics to illustrate these posts. Dear reader, you would thank me, if only you saw what I saw, for not putting up one of the "Muslim food" choices I had. Then again, some infidels eat the stuff and refuse to discriminate because it would make them feel bad somehow. There truly is no accounting for some people's taste.

Iranian immigrant sentenced for sprinking feces [on food for infidels] in grocery store

Iranian immigrant Behrouz Nahidmobarekeh, a legal resident in the U.S. since 1978, has been sentenced to five years in prison for sprinkling dried feces on pastries in a Dallas, Texas grocery store. He said he did it to get back at the store because the employees had been rude to him. He would dry his own feces, then grate it up with a cheese grater, and then go to the store and sprinkle it on the food. After customers complained, a camera was set up and he was caught in the act. He expressed no remorse for what he had done, saying he was seeking to insult the store, not harm anyone.

I think Nahidmobarekeh is speaking the truth about his motives. For Arabs and Muslims (and since 98 percent of Iran's population is Muslim, it's overwhelmingly likely that he is one), shame and honor are everything. When Muslims kill, behead, and blow up people, they're not doing it to harm their victims; they're doing it to shame their victims and thus restore their own honor that was violated by the victims' supposed wrongful acts against them. And this is not just a matter of individual shame and honor. All of us non-Muslims, simply by the fact of our existing as non-Muslims, are rejecting Allah and the Prophet and thus insulting Islam. Therefore when jihadist terrorists attack and kill us, they're not doing it to harm us, they're doing it to insult us and so win back their lost honor, and so restore justice to the world.

The rest of the story is at the link:

It's looking to me like a pattern. I can hear it now though: "Yes, Dag, but just because a few Muslims sprinkle shit on food they serve to infidels in Wales and Texas and perhaps some other places we don't know about doesn't mean that all Muslims do it and do so every time." So why am I suggesting a universal boycott of all things Muslim? Why am I suggesting a boycott of Muslim motor mechanics who fix your brakes? Why am I suggesting a boycott of all Muslim doctors even though it's a small handful who actually go on bombing rampages in London and Glasgow and cities in Iraq and other places? Do I have any evidence at all that every Muslim is going to do a bad job on your brakes? that every doctor is going to prescribe the wrong medication or the wrong treatment so you end up crippled or killed? That every time you buy fish and chips from a Muslim you'll be giving money to those who will finance a bombing campaign against infidels in buses and tube trains? I have no such evidence. I don't want to give the impression that I think any such thing is possible. I urge a boycott against all Muslims because all Muslims are all Muslims. I suggest that only when all Muslims are at major financial risk will all Muslims decide to police their own communities to ensure they don't suffer from the actions of the few. If all Muslim doctors are losing patients because six or a dozen Muslim doctors are suicide bombers, then those hundreds or thousands who aren't committed jihadis will step in and in their own financial interest put a stop to those wrecking their business. Far better to rely on that than to wait for the police to come and the ambulances and the sweep-washers to hose down the blood because we were to squeamish to discriminate against a hostile group who hate us so much they put shit in the food we buy from them.

I'm an easy-going guy, but I'm not going to eat shit to prove how tolerant I am. Others can do as they please.

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Let them kafirs eat cake.

The following story of Muslims feeding shit to kafirs in Britain comes via JihadWatch. The ads above are generated automatically according to key words in the post below. I don't even want to think about it.

UK: Shop-owners sold chocolate cake sprinkled with human faeces

Poisoning food with feces is detailed as a tactic in the Al-Qaeda manual found a few years ago by British intelligence.

"It was not our fault but I don't want to talk about it," said Hasmi. Whose fault was it?

"Shop-owners sold chocolate cake sprinkled with human faeces," from the Daily Mail (thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist):

Two shop-owners were today fined for selling chocolate cake - which had been sprinkled with human faeces.

A horrified customer ate the foul-smelling gateaux but noticed that it didn't taste or smell "quite right" and handed the cake to public health scientists.

The analysts soon established that the sweet treat was covered in faeces and legal proceedings against the shop owners were started.

Shop owners Saeed Hasmi, 25, and Jan Yadgari, 23, were fined £1,500 for selling food unfit for human consumption.

The pair - who ran the Italiano Pizzeria in Roath, Cardiff - admitted the charge but did not say how the chocolate cake was contaminated.

The takeaway is a favourite with late-night revellers and students living around the takeaway close to Cardiff University. [...]

Hasmi and Yadgari at first denied the charge but pleaded guilty at Cardiff magistrates court before the trial.

Hasmi, of Roath, Cardiff, and Yadgari, of Adamsdown, Cardiff, were each fined £1,500 and ordered to pay £200 costs.

After the case Hasmi said: "It was not our fault but I don't want to talk about it.

"I'm not working in the food industry anymore. I want to do something else.

"We are sorry for the people who ate it," he said.

Posted by Robert at 12:15 PM

Here's a bit Spencer left out, he being more tasteful than I.

A spokeswoman for the public health department in Cardiff City Council said: "The person who bought the cake realised it didn't taste or smell quite right so they reported it to us.

"Subsequent examination by the public analyst and national public health service laboratories confirmed the presence of faecal matter.

"There were bits of it all over the top of the cake.

"We cannot say for definite what kind of faecal matter it is, although it is very likely it was human. It would have to go through a DNA test for us to know for absolutely sure."

At The Daily Mail:

This story got 31 comments: Broken-hearted Cheryl Cole 'refusing to eat and down to six stone' after Ashley's cheating scandal

This story got 25 comments: The happy clampers: Guards laugh as they lock up job seeker's car within seconds of it being parked

The story of the Muslims feeding infidels shit got: one comment.

So I left one:

So little response to this makes me wonder if the Brits are so used to eating this stuff fed to them by the government that they don't even bother complaining anymore.

There was little outcry from the unharmed when Muslims-- no, not Anglican fanatics-- bombed the tube trains and buses on 7/11; not much noise from Glaswegians when Muslim doctors bombed the aeroport; nary a peek when Muslims paraded with signs in London demanding people be beheaded for insulting Mohammed; and on it goes. What gets people involved enough to move? Well, how about infidel doctors eating in front of Muslims during Ramadan? What moves them? The demand that the British move beds in hospitals to face Mecca five times per day so Muslim patients can pray. How about any weird or stupid or obscure demand from Muslims at all?

And they also outright feed the Brits "cake." Do you know why? Because as a kafir, as an infidel, you, to the Muslim believer, are najis. You, dear reader, are fecal matter itself yourself. True believers hate you. They hate you. See?

When I finished, I got this: Your comment will be reviewed shortly. Comments may be edited and not all will be published. No shit!

Happy Valentine's Day

Jihad Watch picked this up. Worth many looks:

Sentimental fools that we are, Covenant Zone's weekly Thursday evening meeting is moved to Friday, 6:00 p.m. at the Vancouver Public Library in the atrium outside Blenz coffee bar so some of us can celebrate Valentine's Day with loved ones. Let's do it while we can.

Wednesday, February 13, 2008

What Rowan Williams Hath Wrought

It is the kind of fear that grows daily, the fear that the fools who think they run the Modern world and who think the people are fools instead, are pushing the people with sense into insensible reactions. The following comment doesn't come from a prole on the dole. This is a middle class reader of an upscale paper:

"I've been tipped over the edge. After 40 years of supporting Labour I have today applied to join the BNP, probably now the only guardian of British values. I dare say many many others will do just the same."

Gordon Lonsdale, Northampton, UK

I dare say Gordon is right, and more's the pity.

The question to concern us all is: What are we gonna do! If we allow the BNP and its equivalents elsewhere to gain power, then what of us who are normal and decent like other normal and decent people pushed too far? I don't want to vote for the BNP. Not today, not tomorrow, not never. But I will, just like Gordon, if it's the only show in town worth seeing.

The following piece is erudite to a point it's doubtful that Gordon above would know all the allusions here, and most others not being literature students either, most likely, and not needing to be to know reality from dung, they still come to a sensible if frustrted conclusion that's hard to argue against. I find that though this piece below is clever and insightful Anne Applebaum says little more than Gordon, though she does so brilliantly.

A Craven Canterbury Tale
Tuesday, February 12, 2008; Page A19

Is this a storm in a teacup, as the archbishop now claims? Was the "feeding frenzy" biased and unfair? Certainly it is true that, since Thursday, when Rowan Williams -- the archbishop of Canterbury, spiritual leader of the Church of England, symbolic leader of the international Anglican Communion -- called for "constructive accommodation" with some aspects of sharia law, and declared the incorporation of Muslim religious law into the British legal system "unavoidable," practically no insult has been left unsaid.

One Daily Telegraph columnist called the archbishop's statement a " disgraceful act of appeasement"; another called it a " craven counsel of despair." An Observer columnist eruditely wondered whether the archbishop's comment might count as a miracle, according to David Hume's definition of a miracle as a "violation of the laws of nature," while the notoriously sensationalistic Sun launched a campaign to remove the archbishop from office.

Feebly, the archbishop's supporters have tried to defend him, reporting that he is "completely overwhelmed" by the hostility and "in a state of shock." Arguing that his remarks were misunderstood, misinterpreted and taken out of context, his office even took the trouble to publish them, in lecture form and the radio interview version, on his official Web site. I highly recommend a closer look. Reading them, it instantly becomes clear that every syllable of the harshest tabloid criticism is more than well deserved. The archbishop's language is mild-mannered, legalistic, jargon-riddled; the sentiments behind them are profoundly dangerous.

What one British writer called the " jurisprudential kernel" of his thoughts is as follows: In the modern world, we must avoid the "inflexible or over-restrictive applications of traditional law" and must be wary of our "universalist Enlightenment system," which risks "ghettoizing" a minority. Instead, we must embrace the notion of "plural jurisdiction." This, in other words, was no pleasant fluff about tolerance for foreigners: This was a call for the evisceration of the British legal system as we know it.

I understand, of course, that sharia courts vary from country to country, that not every Muslim country stones adulterers and that some British Muslims volunteer to let unofficial sharia courts monitor their domestic disputes, which is not much different from choosing to work things out with the help of a marriage counselor. But the archbishop's speech actually touched on something far more fundamental: the question of whether all aspects of the British legal system necessarily apply to all the inhabitants of Britain.

This is no merely theoretical issue, since conflicts between sharia law and British law arise ever more frequently. One case before the British court of appeals concerns a man with learning disabilities who was "married" over the telephone to a woman in Bangladesh.

Though British law recognizes sharia weddings, just as it recognizes Jewish or Catholic weddings, this one, it has been argued, might be considered so "offensive to the conscience of the English court" that it cannot be recognized -- unless, of course, the fact that the marriage is legal under Bangladeshi sharia law is the most important consideration. Meanwhile, police in Wales are dealing with an epidemic of forced marriages, honor killings remain a perennial problem, and British law has already been altered to accommodate "sharia" mortgages. The archbishop is absolutely right in his belief that a universalist Enlightenment system -- one in which the legitimacy of the law derives from democratic procedures, not divine edicts, and in which the same rules apply to everyone living in the same society -- cannot easily accommodate all of these different practices.

Many explanations for the archbishop's statements have already been proffered: the weakness of the Church of England, the paganism of the British, the feebleness of Williams's intellect, the decline of the West. At base, though, his beliefs are merely an elaborate, intellectualized version of a commonly held, and deeply offensive, Western prejudice: Alone among all of the world's many religious groups, Muslims living in Western countries cannot be expected to conform to Western law -- or perhaps do not deserve to be treated as legal equals of their non-Muslim neighbors.

Every time police shrug their shoulders when a Muslim woman complains that she has been forced to marry against her will, every time a Western doctor tries not to notice the female circumcisions being carried out in his hospital, they are acting in the spirit of the archbishop of Canterbury. So is the social worker who dismisses the plight of an illiterate, house-bound woman, removed from her village and sent across the world to marry a man she has never met, on the grounds that her religion prohibits interference. That's why -- if there is to be war between the British tabloids and the archbishop -- I'm on the side of the Sun.

A very clever and accomplished woman like Anne Applebaum is on the side of the Sun, and Gordon and those like him are on the side of the BNP. That is due to the likes of Rowan Williams and the gnostic elitists who are currently enraging the Western world. I claim that such behaviour on the part of our disgusting intelligentsia is nothing short of a war crime. When a Sikh on a bicycle is attacked by an enraged Western mob, it will be due to the Left fascist dhimmitude of the intelligentsia that the innocent are harmed. It is the pandering and the enabling of the primitives in the world to the point they feel not merely entitled to insane and suicidal behaviour but compelled to commit it because they have been fed the role over the decades by elitist philobarbarists that decides me on terming our intelligentsia as war criminals. Giving aid and comfort and endless cheer-leading, not to mention billions in aid money, to ignorant and gullible peasants and then working them into fits of resentment against the demons of white middle-class sanctimony and self-righteousness for the sake of play-acting on the parts of the middle-class Death Hippies is a war crime, for which these awful bastards should be taken to the streets and there to be hanged from lamp posts. After a fair trial, of course. And since no one is saying that but me, the alternative is for the normal person to look for some relief from the mad hubris of the Rowan Williams and Tony Blair theatrical religiosity of the Left in some group such as the BNP.

Not everyone is as smart as Rowan Williams, but they aren't bloody stupid. Not everyone is as articulate as Anne Appleaum, but they can speak for themselves, and the word is increasingly: Enough! Soon it will be Enoch! And then the worst nightmares of us all will come to pass. Better to hang a few now than risk the terror to come if we don't act responsibly. Hang them after a fair trial, of course. But hang them before it's too late.

Kurt Westergaard and the Danish Cartoons in the Open

There's nowhere to run, nowhere to hide. If everyone who stands up to Islamic fanaticism must either die or hide, then the West will become an armed camp of prisoners and guards, no one else remaining. Theo van Gogh dead; Ayaan Hirsi Ali in hiding; Geert Wilders in a poice compound every night; Salman Rushdee scurrying around furtively; Fleming Rose in America; the Danish Cartoonists under guard; and the long list of others underground goes on. When do we stop running to run nowhere, stop hiding when there is nowhere to hide? Well, today is a good day.

The Times

February 13, 2008
Newspapers defy Muslim fanatics to support Kurt Westergaard

David Charter in Brussels and Marcus Oscarsson in Stockholm
Denmark's three main newspapers will take the provocative step today of reprinting a cartoon showing the Prophet Muhammad wearing a bomb instead of a turban after the arrest yesterday of three suspected Islamic terrorists for plotting to murder the artist.
The cartoon by Kurt Westergaard was one of 12 depicting the prophet which triggered riots around the world leading to dozens of deaths when they first appeared in 2005. The violent backlash demonstrated starkly the incendiary interface between Islam and the boundaries of freedom of expression in Europe.
Mr Westergaard, who has spent three months moving between secret addresses while security services tracked the alleged plotters, was back at work yesterday to draw a self-portrait for today's editions. It shows him still clutching his pen and a Danish flag, but he is obscured by a dark and bloody cloud featuring Arabic script which declares: "Glorious Koran."
Mr Westergaard's image of Muhammad, which he intended to show how Islam was being used by terrorists, was regarded by some Muslims as one of the most offensive of the cartoons published in his Jyllands-Posten newspaper in September 2005.

What if a newspaper in another country, Islamic or not, print the headline "All Danish People are no better than Dogs"�, is that ok in the name of free speech? I bet you the Danish government would be up in arms. There is NO such thing as free speech WITHOUT responsibility.
The newspapers in Denmark knew exactly what they were doing, making the inference that all Muslims are terrorist.
Waqar, Walsall, UK
would these papers print anti semetic or racist cartoons? thsi shows that the argument of Freedom of speech is nonsense, it has always been so. There are laws in every country to deny freedom of speech and discriminate on gender or race.

The Iranian newspapers challeng to print anti semetic cartoons was not taken up by the danes as they didn't seem to to relate this to freedom of speech.

The Danes seem to have learnt nothing from the affair, if you insult and disrespect someone, don't be surprised when they show you the same contempt.
Akram, London,

Mr Westergaard revealed yesterday that he and his wife, Gitte, 66, had been living at various secret locations since death threats were first made three months ago.


"Of course I fear for my life after the Danish Security and Intelligence Service informed me of the concrete plans of certain people to kill me," he said in a statement. "However, I have turned fear into anger and indignation. It has made me angry that a perfectly normal everyday activity which I used to do by the thousand was abused to set off such madness. I have attended to my work and I still do. I could not possibly know for how long I have to live under police protection.
He added: "I think, however, that the impact of the insane response to my cartoon will last for the rest of my life. It is sad indeed, but it has become a fact of my life."

The joke is on those of us in the West who think the impact of fascism as it emanates from both Islam and the Left is not important and visceral in our personal lives. Too bad, but try sitting on the tube train or a double-decker bus in London, or sit in an office tower in New York City, or go to school in Belsan, Russia, or take a subway in Madrid, and then think how little this affects you. Or read a paper at Tivoli, do any usual or ordinary thing, like write a column at Maclean's Magazine, then ask yourself if your life is what it was and what you think it should be. Do nothing, go to the aeroport at Glasgow. Go disco dancing in Bali. Go to the beach at Cronula. There's nowhere to run. Not to the shopping mall in Colorado, not to work in Texas or Kansas. There's nowhere to hide. Ignore it all you will, if you do nothing about the spread of fascism in the hope it won't find you, play dhimmi and hope the fascists will ignore you, none of that will work because there is no hope for the fearful or the ignorant. It's time to stand up and post your cartoon. Show it off. Let the world see. There is nowhere to run, nowhere to hide.

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

Hesham Islam, Gordon England, and the Manipulation of Decency

"Hesham has wonderful friendships and relationships, and therefore he can give me extraordinarily good advice in dealing with countries and people," England said. "I take his advice, and I listen to him all the time."

England said he rarely disagrees with Islam's guidance. "After all," he said, "if you have a good doctor, you listen to your doctor, right?"

The bad news, dear reader, is that the man above, Gordon England, is the Deputy Secretary of Defense in the United States of America. Why is that bad? Because the man he glows over is none other than Muslim Brotherhood operator, Hashem Islam. Muslim brotherhood? That would be the parent organization of Al Queda. Mr England doesn't seem to get it. That's the bad news. The good news is.... Oh, I don't see any yet.

Let's take a look at Gordon England, a decent old duffer, from what we see.

Gordon England is the 29th Deputy Secretary of Defense. He previously served as the 72nd and 73rd Secretary of the Navy and as the first Deputy Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. Prior to joining the administration of President George W. Bush, Mr. England served as President of the General Dynamics Fort Worth Aircraft Company (later Lockheed)....

Secretary of the Navy? Maybe Mr. England has a boat, but there's no record of it here. If he has one it's very likely a nice one, maybe even a sail boat.

Gordon Richard England (September 15, 1937[1]) is an American businessman who currently serves as the United States Deputy Secretary of Defense. A two-time former United States Secretary of the Navy, he was nominated for his current position by U.S. President George W. Bush. President Bush recess appointed England to Deputy Defense Secretary on January 4, 2006.

England was a controversial choice for Secretary of the Navy due to his lack of any military service experience... U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld ... decided to make corporate experience one of the key requirements in his appointees as was reported in the Washington Times. This policy led to England's appointment alongside other leading industrialists.... On January 24, 2003 England took up his new role as Deputy Secretary for Homeland Security in the newly formed United States Department of Homeland Security.... England was recalled to once again take on the role of Secretary of the Navy after just a few months following the suicide of his nominated replacement Colin R. McMillan. England was sworn in on October 1, 2003.


England has been actively involved in a variety of civic, charitable and government organizations, including serving as a city councilman; Vice Chair, Board of Goodwill Industries; the USO's Board of Governors; the Defense Science Board; the Board of Visitors at Texas Christian University; and many others.

He has been recognized for numerous professional and service contributions from multiple organizations such as Distinguished Alumnus Award from the University of Maryland; the Department of Defense Distinguished Public Service Award; the Silver Beaver Award from the Boy Scouts of America; the Silver Knight of Management Award from the National Management Association; the Henry M. Jackson Award and the IEEE Centennial Award.

It is my personal opinion that any old guy who earns by hard work and dedication the Silver Beaver Award from the Boy Scouts of America has to be a decent fellow. That, in my mind, is not in question. What I question is England's reliance on the good advice of a Muslim terrorist sympathizer who advised England to dismiss one of America's only military advisers on jihad. This is our government in the person of Gordon England:

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., "FRONT-GATE," Jewish World Review. January 23, 2008;

Stephen Coughlin, [is] a Major in the Army Reserves who was working as a civilian contractor for the Joint Chiefs of Staff when he ran afoul of one Hashem Islam. Islam is Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England's point-man for the Pentagon outreach to the Muslim community.

Hashem Islam is also evidently an admirer of ISNA. He arranged for Secretary England to address one of the group's meetings last year — a huge help to an organization reeling from its designation by the Bush Department of Justice not only as a Brotherhood front but as an unindicted co-conspirator in a terrorism-financing conspiracy.

According to reporting by the Washington Times' National Security Correspondent, Bill Gertz, the sacking of Major Coughlin was precipitated by a sharp disagreement with Mr. Islam over ISNA. The former had made a serious study of this and other Islamist organizations as part of a 333-page thesis titled "To Our Great Detriment: Ignoring What Extremists Say About Jihad" prepared for, and recently accepted by, the National Defense Intelligence College.

Based on his analysis of the Islamofascist roots and agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood, Stephen Coughlin was given to warning his military audiences that it was no "moderate" organization. For example, he notes that one of the Ikhwan's most prominent leaders, Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi, has declared: "The abduction and killing of Americans in Iraq is an obligation so as to cause them to leave Iraq immediately."

Coughlin has also studied the evidence submitted by the government in the Holy Land Foundation trial, including this chilling passage from a 1991 Muslim Brotherhood memorandum about its mission: "The Ikwan['s] in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah's religion is made victorious over all other religions."

Mr. Islam reportedly told the Joint Staff's Coughlin to soften his criticism of the Brotherhood's ISNA and, when the latter refused, defamed him as "a Christian zealot with a pen." Some accounts add that it was a "poison" pen. Since Mr. Coughlin is not giving his side of the story to the press, it may require a congressional subpoena to get it properly told.

What is known, however, is that shortly after this exchange, the Joint Chiefs of Staff did not renew Mr. Coughlin's contract, which will expire at the end of March. Mr. Gertz reports that the Chiefs deemed it "too hot" to retain the services of a man widely believed to be the military's most knowledgeable expert on the Islamist ideology of our enemies.

I'll repeat it: that I think Gordon England is a harmless old coot, the kind of fellow most children would like to have as a grandfather. Is he a man who is sharp enough in the hurley burley of the world of people who kill and destroy for ideological reasons to make his way and guide the nation through this treachery? I suggest that we do not require a decent old fellow who would be a kindly grand-papa; I suggest we could have used a man who knows when he's being had by a manipulator. I suggest that Gordon England's failure, and the failure of those who appointed him, is that they are good and decent people as well. Gordon England couldn't see through Hashem Islam. This is part of what he couldn't see:

At the Center for Vigilant Freedom we have a series of excerpts from Claudia Rosset dealing with the life and times of Gordon England's advisor on things Islamic
January 25, 2008 by Christine: From National Review Online today -

[A] profile of [Gordon England's Muslim adviser Hesham] Islam, released October 15, 2007 by the Armed Forces Press Service under the headline: "Senior Advisor to Deputy Secretary Focuses on Relationship Building." Still available on the Defense web site, the article includes an interview with Islam, some ... praise from England ..., and a photo of Islam, flashing a tight smile, seated in his shirtsleeves at his Pentagon desk, next to a bulletin board decked with diplomatic invitations.

But this Pentagon-endorsed profile raises more questions than it answers. It begins: "If Hesham Islam's life story was translated into a screenplay - and it's got all the makings of a Hollywood blockbuster - the director would be hard-pressed to come up with a more compelling chain of events landing him as a top adviser to the deputy defense secretary."

As told by Islam to the reporter, "The movie would open with Islam as a young boy growing up in Cairo, Egypt, huddling in terror as Israeli bombs came raining down, demolishing much of the building around him and his family."

There's one problem with this scene. As far as I have been able to discover, Israel during Hesham Islam's entire lifetime has never bombed Cairo. Asked to explain this, the Pentagon spokesman duly conferred with Islam, and relayed to me by phone that Islam says this building-wrecking bombing raid took place during the 1967 Six-Day War. But as for details that might substantiate the when and where in Cairo of this graphic scene, Islam "Doesn't remember. He was seven years old."


Queries I have made to a number of experts in Tel Aviv, the U.S., and Cairo itself all get the same reply: It didn't happen.

[After a list of dubious autobiographical details unconfirmed or contradicted by facts, Rosett writes that Islam immigrated to America and for] five years he worked in what the spokesman describes as the "food services" industry. In 1985 he joined the Navy as an electronics technician in the submarine service. According to his Pentagon biography, he went on to serve on a number of ships, in largely technical and operational posts, before hooking up with Gordon England and finally arriving at his current job in the Pentagon.

So, what qualifies Islam to serve as an adviser to whom Gordon England listens all the time, and whose advice England takes? According to Kevin Wensing, England's pubic-affairs aide: "Mr. Islam brings 20 years of experience in the U.S. Navy and international relations to his current assignment."

[Aside from knocking together a mean falafel, Hesham Islam has] an M.A. in national-security affairs, awarded in 1992 at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif. For this degree, Islam wrote a 139-page thesis about the Middle East, entitled "Roots of Regional Ambition." In it, he devoted dozens of pages to lambasting Israel, and the influence of American Jews on U.S. politics. He deplored "Israeli activities which have detrimentally affected U.S. objectives but which have continued with impunity." He argued that U.S. support for Israel "has negatively affected the attainment of U.S. objectives in the Middle East." He blamed the influence of American Jews on U.S. policy for a host of ills, ranging from Arab "retaliation" against Americans, to jobs lost overseas, to hampering sales of "defensive arms to friendly Arab states."

When Rosset was done asking questions, what happened?

"[The Department of Defense] puff piece on Heshem Islam, the Muslim outreach aide to Deputy Defense Secretary England, who accused Pentagon Islamic Law and Jihad military doctrine expert Stephen Coughlin of being a "Christian zealot with a pen" went 'poof' and disappeared off a website," as we see at Free Republic, which continues:

Bill Gertz who has been in the forefront of l'affaire Coughlin disclosures had this account of the bafflegab by the flacks at the DoD about why the profile of Heshem was taken down.

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said "that piece was taken down in an attempt to reduce the rhetoric and the emotion surrounding this issue while we try to determine the facts."

The Pentagon does not comment on such personnel matters, he noted. "That said, we are looking into the matter and trying to reconcile conflicting statements."

But Gertz goes on with this twisted tale to press home and offers some interesting tidbits about Islam's prior views that are disturbing.

Mr. Wensing could not explain why Mr. Islam said in his biography that he was on a freighter sunk by an Iranian torpedo in the Persian Gulf when there is no record of the ship being sunk.

According to his 1992 master's thesis at the Naval Postgraduate School , Mr. Islam is highly critical of Israel and the influence of American Jews on U.S. politics, noting that U.S. ties to Israel have harmed relations to other states in the Middle East .

Some unidentified DoD person gave us a laugh when they commented:

One Pentagon official suggested that any security concerns about Mr. Islam are misguided, noting that someone in his position would have to face a background check.

We read: "someone in his position would have to face a background check." What? I thought you checked!

More here: Bill Gertz, "Inside The Ring," Washington Times, February 1, 2008


Thus far, then, we stack up a businessman who has never served in the military taking advice about Islam from a cook in the Iraqi navy. Cook, or more exactly, "food service worker," complains about Major Stephen Coughlin being a Christian zealot with a pen. Some have suggested that Coughlin is a nobody who hasn't published in juried academic journals, who must not be, therefore, a serious scholar. Better, one assumes, to trust a food service worker who lies about his life but who obviously hates Israel.

At Shrinkwrapped, a psychiatrist's blog, I believe, we get this:

"Stephen Coughlin, a lawyer, intelligence analyst and Major in the Army Reserve and an expert of Islamic law and Jihad working at the Joint Chiefs of Staff; he is apparently the preeminent, some say, the only such expert we have in DOD. Coughlin has briefed and given his presentations to many high ranking officers and has gained high praise for his revelatory presentations about what Islamic law has to say about Jihad and how we must analyze the threat we face from Islam.


According to news accounts, Couglin is being "terminated" from his contract J-2 intelligence position at the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the behest of Mr. Hesham Islam, a Muslim who is a retired Navy Commander and senior civilian advisor for International Affairs on the staff of Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England, who England calls his "interlocutor" and "personal, close confidante." Mr. Couglin's analysis of fundamental Muslim texts, Islamic law and statements by Islamic terrorists concludes that the core documents of Islam and the world-view and the law and doctrines derived from them are the driving force which justifies and animates Jihad and also contains many other such unpalatable conclusions about Islam. Mr. Hesham Islam apparently doesn't want people at the Pentagon to hear this view. News accounts quote Islam as calling Coughlin "a Christian zealot with a poison pen," labeling Coughlin's fact-based assessments of Islam as "too harsh" and "controversial," and personally telling Couglin to "soften his message " about Islamic doctrines and Jihad. Since, according to his boss Gordon England, Mr. Hashem does Muslim "outreach," I wonder if it is Mr. Hashem who is responsible for arranging all those briefings of high ranking U.S. military personnel by representatives of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), un-indicted co-conspirators all."

Of course, Hesham Islam's c.v. was disappeared from the department of Defense website after Claudia Rosset and others started asking unanswerable questions. But thanks to the Internet, here is some of it, the rest available at the link below:

Although Islam's life lends itself to high-drama scenes typically seen on the big screen, England sees him more as a behind-the-scenes player with a special talent for bringing other actors together.

Before retiring from the Navy, Islam contributed this skill and his regional and language expertise on the staff of then-Navy Secretary England. Much of Islam's work focused on U.S. military engagement with the Middle East.

As England moved to the No. 2 Pentagon position, Islam followed, broadening his purview to "the whole globe."

"He's my interlocutor," England said. "He represents me to the international community. He assists me in my own outreach efforts, and he's extraordinarily good at it."

Islam is rarely at his Pentagon desk, believing the best way to serve as England's "man out in town in Washington, D.C." is to be out and about, building relationships.

"I am a strong believer that there are no relationships between countries," he said. "Relationships are between people, and those relationships are what bring countries together."

"It is all about friendships between people," agreed England, "and you build them one person at a time."

England calls relationship building "a contact sport." "You can't develop friendships unless you actually go out and take the effort to meet people and interact with people," he said.

As he represents the Defense Department around the country and the around the world, England said, he counts on Islam's insights and advice. "Hesham helps me understand people's different perspectives and how they see things," England said. "He has a cultural background that's very helpful, but he also works at it very hard to get a better understanding of people and how they think."

Islam works tirelessly to befriend diplomats from around the world, learning from each about their country, its sensitivities, and its requirements. "I help them understand us, as Americans, and help my boss understand them," he said. "My goal is to bridge the gap and help people understand each other, even if we are different."

Not all Islam's efforts are directed toward other countries. A Muslim, Islam works closely with the Muslim-American community, encouraging its members to integrate into American society and take an active stand with the United States in the war on violent extremism. "This war can't be won by just Americans," he said. "It's a war that has to be fought by Muslims. Islam has been hijacked, and it is time to take it back."

Read it all at:

That's what I say. What do we read from other sources possibly more authorative than I am?

"HOMELAND INSECURITY: Islamist 'Trojan horse' in Pentagon, say experts
FBI: Top defense advisers linked to radical Muslim Brotherhood."; Posted: February 01, 2008

Federal authorities say a high-level Muslim Pentagon aide, who led a campaign to silence a Pentagon intelligence analyst for taking a hard line against Islam, is running an "influence operation" on behalf of U.S. Muslim groups fronting for the radical Muslim Brotherhood.


Islam ... is heavily involved with one of the groups, the Islamic Society of North America, which U.S. prosecutors last year named as a member of the U.S. branch of the Muslim Brotherhood and an unindicted co-conspirator in a major terror-funding case.

Recently declassified FBI documents reveal its sister organization, an Islamist think tank known as the International Institute of Islamic Thought, or IIIT, is involved in a Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy to wage a cultural and political jihad to eventually take over America from within ? most notably, through infiltration of government agencies.

Islam works closely with Saifulislam (Arabic for "sword of Islam") on Pentagon outreach projects involving Middle Eastern embassies and the so-called Wahhabi lobby in Washington.

"He's a Muslim brother," an FBI official said of Islam. "He's a bad actor. He's well-positioned to be where he is, and that doesn't do us any good."


A former Pentagon colleague of Coughlin described Islam as a "gatekeeper," who at a minimum, is blocking candid discussion of the religious nature of the threat posed by Muslim terrorists. Such action, William Gawthrop says, thwarts the U.S. war effort, because it denies military brass and rank-and-file the information they need to effectively fight the Islamist enemy.


"Gordon is so trusting of this guy because he's worked for him for so long," the same official said. "But he's got questionable contacts, and he (England) needs to have his antennae up."


"Gordon is so trusting of this guy....

"He's a Muslim brother," an FBI official said of Islam. "He's a bad actor...."

"It is all about friendships between people," agreed England, "and you build them one person at a time."

He has been recognized for numerous professional and service contributions ... [e.g.] the Silver Knight of Management Award from the National Management Association....

Gordon England is a decent guy, I'm sure of it. He's also the Deputy Secretary of Defense in the United States of America. His close adviser is a Muslim terrorist; and England didn't get it, maybe still doesn't. We can't sit by and allow another man, regardless of how nice he might be, to get fooled by terrorists. It's time to demand an accounting. It's time for gramps and the geezers to shuffle off to Florida. It's time for men to take over the stations of our guidance and protection. In this game, nice don't finish last: they end up as dead as the rest of the losers they didn't save.

Monday, February 11, 2008

Our Enemies Within: Hesham Islam and Eric Edelman

The following story is like a magic trick: just when it looks like one ordinary stunt it turns out to be a chicken pulled from a hat. A Muslim infiltrator in the U.S. government, Hesham Islam, has been exposed and is soon to leave his post, so far not charged with a crime. Islam, working as an adviser to a high-level U.S. bureaucrat, tried to have a U.S. Army major dismissed from his position in the U.S. military as a lecturer on the nature of jihad. Islam referred to Major Stephen Coughlin as a "Christian zealot with a pen." For Islam's boss, Gordon England, that was criticism enough to have Coughlin's contract ended. Instead, Islam was outed, and Coughlin was reinstalled. So far, very good. But now comes Eric S. Edelman. Our nation is in trouble again, not so much from our enemies this time as from our leaders.

"Pentagon insiders say Eric S. Edelman, undersecretary of defense for policy, has sought to stop the awarding of a new contract to Coughlin. Edelman served as ambassador to Turkey from 2003 to 2005."

Embattled Muslim aide to leave Pentagon job
Hesham Islam's 'resume didn't add up,' official says
Posted: February 11, 2008
11:07 am Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

In a stunning turn of events, a high-level Muslim military aide [Hesham Islam] blamed for costing an intelligence contractor [Maj. Stephen Coughlin] his job will step down from his own Pentagon post, WND has learned.... "He's [Islam] a Muslim brother," an FBI official told WND. "He's a bad actor...." [Steven] Emerson says Islam prescribed a steady diet of Muslim Brotherhood-connected outreach for his unwitting boss, deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England.... As WND previously reported, FBI officials believe Islam is involved with the U.S. branch of the Muslim Brotherhood and is helping its front groups run "influence operations" against the U.S. government....

Meanwhile, his rival, Maj. Stephen Coughlin, a leading authority on Islamic war doctrine, may stay in the Pentagon, moving from the office of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the office of the secretary of defense. However, sources say a former U.S. ambassador to Turkey [Eric S. Edelman, undersecretary of defense for policy] is trying to block his new contract.

Edelan is not just a typical bureaucrat but is seemingly too a blinkered ideologue who is causing our nation more trouble, perhaps as much as did Hesham Islam.

Mr. Eric S. Edelman, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy


Ambassador Eric S. Edelman is the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.


His last assignment was as Ambassador to the Republic of Turkey from July 2003 to June 2005. .... Mr. Edelman was Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy, Prague, Czech Republic, from June 1994 to June 1996.

From April 1993 to July 1993, he served as Deputy to the Ambassador-at-Large and Special Advisor to the Secretary of State on the New Independent States. Mr. Edelman's areas of responsibility were defense, security and space issues.

Mr. Edelman served as Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Soviet and East European Affairs in the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) from April 1990 to April 1993.

From April 1989 to March 1990, he was Special Assistant (European Affairs) to the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs.

Mr. Edelman served at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow 1987-89, where he was head of the external political section. He had responsibility for Soviet policies in the third world in the Office of Soviet Affairs at the Department of State from 1984 to 1986.

Previously, Mr. Edelman served as Special Assistant to Secretary of State George P. Shultz, 1982-84; a staff officer on the Secretariat Staff, 1982; a watch officer in the State.

As Hugh Fitzgerald points out below, this man is well-versed in Sovietology but seems to know nothing whatsoever about Islam, filtering his world-view through the lens of the Cold War, ignoring or not knowing the difference between that war and our current war against Islamic jihad.

Bush Bypasses Senate: Installs Eric S. Edelman as Undersecretary of Defense for Policy
AP 9aug2005

[T]he White House announced on Tuesday that Bush named Eric S. Edelman to be undersecretary of defense for policy, the chief policy adviser to the secretary of defense. Edelman replaces Douglas J. Feith, whose battles with Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., over the release of documents related to Iraq stalled Edelman's nomination.

Edelman is a career foreign service officer. He served as ambassador to Turkey from July 2003 to June 2005 and he was a national security assistant to Vice President Dick Cheney from February 2001 to June 2003....

As an ambassador he was less than successful.

Ambassador to the Republic of Turkey (July 2003-June 2005): Edelman served as U.S. Ambassador to Turkey after the second Iraq invasion, during which anti-American tensions within Turkey were high. According to Ibrahim Karagul, a columninst with the Turkish Weekly, "Edelman act(ed) more like a colonial governor than an ambassador... (He) is probably the least-liked and trusted American ambassador in Turkish history, and his reputation is not likely to recuperate." [4] [^ Karagul, Ibrahim (March 18, 2005). A Few Notes On President's Visit to Syria and Edelman. Turkish Weekly. Retrieved on 2007-07-26.] ...

More directly: "During his government career, Edelman has shuttled back and forth between the State Department and DOD. His latest assignment was as ambassador to Turkey, where he gained a reputation as a meddlesome critic of the Turkish government at a time when anti-Americanism began flaring up throughout the country."

What does he bring to the job?

Supporter of Turkish membership the European Union.

Claims: 'Terror in the Middle East will continue due to some political balances, poor economic conditions of large segments of the population and high rates of unemployment within the young population.''

And his understanding of jihad is completely missing. He seems to have no understanding of jihad. What is he doing in this job then? Study after study shows clearly to all that economics plays little or no part in the jihadi motivation, that it is jihad ideology based on and rooted in Islamic orthodoxy that propels jihad. Our govenment is losing this war against jihad because it continues to follow the Cold War line of thinking in terms of economics and geopoitical strategizing at the expense of looking to the people and understanding them as they are not as the bureaucrats assume they are. Incomprehensible as it is to the bureaucrats, it's not the money: it's the jihad.

Pentagon insiders say Eric S. Edelman, undersecretary of defense for policy, has sought to stop the awarding of a new contract to Coughlin.

In a comment at Jihadwatch:

Embedded in the report is a disquieting fact:

"[S]ources say a former U.S. ambassador to Turkey is trying to block his [Coughlin's] new contract"

"Pentagon insiders say Eric S. Edelman, undersecretary of defense for policy, has sought to stop the awarding of a new contract to Coughlin."

Who is this Edelman?

"Edelman served as ambassador to Turkey from 2003 to 2005."

Excerpts from an interview in 2004 with Edelman show his neo-Wilsonian "we-must-use-the-good-Muslims-[who of course are the vast majority]-to-help-save-us-from-the-problem-of-that-pesky-tiny-minority-of -extremists" school of thought:

Clearly, the absence of freedom, the absence of hope, the absence of economic development are the breeding ground of terrorism. So the degree to which we, along with the other G-8 countries, the other partner countries, but most of all the countries from the region are able to address those issues and help countries move forward on a path of reform, both political and economic, that gives hope to people and more opportunity to diminish the pool from which terrorists recruit the disheartened and the hopeless.

From the U.S. point of view, the Broader Middle East Initiative is an effort to build a supportive international structure for the calls for reform that have issued from the broader Middle East region.

The focus is to see what can be done to support democratization, the spread of literacy, better regional financing flows, entrepreneurship, and investment opportunities in the region to deal with both the economic and political reform requirements of the region

And Edelman in that same interview supports the admission of Turkey into the EU.

Posted by: cantor [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 11, 2008 3:36 PM

"Clearly, the absence of freedom, the absence of hope, the absence of economic development are the breeding ground of terrorism."
-- from a posting above, quoting Eric Edelman, who apparently does not like the work of, and would like to block the re-appoint of, Stephen Coughlin

Eric Edelman is one more person -- his background is in Soviet studies -- who has learned all he has learned about Islam from his encounter with Turkey, and not so much Turkey as with secularist Turks, in a still-semi-Kemalist Turkey. In this respect, he is like others, such as Perle and Feith, who were before becoming enmeshed in the Iraq misadeventure, great believers in the permanence of Kemalism, and of secular Turkey, and some even served as agents of the Turkish government. Another example of the phenomenon, though his case is more complicated, is that of Bernard Lewis.

Edelman firmly believes, allows himself to believe, cannot but believe, that "[c]learly, the absence of freedom, the absence of hope, the absence of economic development are the breeding ground of terrorism." This is the world of Muslims without Islam, Hamlet without the Prince. He feels, along with George Bush, that if we cure that "absence of freedom" by transplanting that "freedom" (most crudely defined as vote-counting at election time) to "ordinary moms and dads" in the Middle East, and if we bring them "prosperity" and so end that "absence of economic development," and both of those, and so much more, will reverse that "absence of hope" that, the eric-edelmans of this world must believe, have to believe, deeply truly sincerely cannot do other than believe, is the "breeding ground of terrorism."

He's got it wrong. The breeding-ground of terrorism is any state, or people, or society, or community, where Islam, unmediated or undiluted by time or space or other conceivable identities, molds the minds of men, and they take it seriously. They may be as spectacularly rich as Bin Laden (or at least his family), or from as notable a background as Ayman al-Zawahiri. The terrorists and would-be are likely, studies have shown, to be far better educated and better off than the average Muslim.

But that is not all that Eric Edelman gets wrong. He doesn't seem to comprehend the intellectual world, the moral world, of Islam -- and that world can only be conveyed, or rather cannot conceivably be conveyed without, a knowledge of what Islam is all about, what Muslims read in their canonical texts, what they have repeated day in and day out (no, not among the secularists of Turkey, no, but that experience, and not merely in Turkey but in Turkey as the cosseted American ambassador, was as poor a guide for Edelman was was Paul Wolfowitz's experience as the cosseted American ambassador in Jakarta, meeting the most secular locals, and being told what his local interlocutors were sure he would be pleased to here ("yes, we really are looking forward to establishing relations with Israel"), and learning little about Islam, and certainly not learning about it from his charming Muslims-in-exile friends, who were not about to say "you know, the best way for you to deal with Iraq is to allow the ethnic and sectarian fissures to work their magic, and to have consequences beyond the borders of Iraq, because the best thing for you Infidels is to divide and demoralize the Camp of Islam" -- no, that is not what Paul Wolfowitz was told by Chalabi, Makiya, or his Arab non-Iraqi companion).

If indeed Edelman thinks it would be best for policy to be made, in dealing with the threat of Jihad, by not studying the texts and tenets, and not listening to those who have studied those texts and those tenets (and are definitely not part of the small army of apologists who have been camped out in the capitals of the West for the past several decades, nicely subsidized by Saudi Arabia and other sweetly disinterested parties), then perhaps his counsel of ignorance entitles him, too, to be shown the door.

There is a limit. And the limit on this kind of thing has been reached.

Posted by: Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 11, 2008 3:57 PM

Edelman himself sums himself up thus:

Edelman: I think it would have been our preference that Pakistan stay on the course that it was on of having elections and moving towards a more firmly rooted constitutional form of government, rooted in the voice of the people as registered at the polls. And I think what we would like to see now is, as quickly as possible, for Pakistan to get back on that course, to hold the elections that were meant to be held in January, for President Musharraf to give some indication about his intentions in terms of taking off his uniform and returning Pakistan to civilian rule and making sure that this provisional constitutional order is an event of very short duration. Our preference would have been, quite frankly, that he not issue it at all.

Is Washington confident that if we go through elections in Pakistan that the result will be as strong an ally in the war on terror as President Musharraf has been?

Edelman: Well, this is obviously one of those difficult problems in the world, where you have to balance a lot of competing interests.

Naipaul relates the story of a Pakistani peasant who sits in squalor and hates modernity: "His world had shrunk to a hut in a crumbling village. He was prepared for even that to crumble away further, once the faith was served." (Naipaul: p. 89.)

It is the utopian vision of the world as perfectible 'if only we throw enough money at the problem' that prevents our current leadership from understanding the nature of jihad. How much more money would have enticed bin Ladin to remain in the discos and flesh-pots of Beirut rather than going off in search of Jihad in Afgahanistan? How poor were the 19 psychotic jihadis who attacked us on 9/11? How much more welfare money will it take to encourage Muslim rioters across western Europe to quit burning and looting every night? How many immigrant student doctors will quit bombing England and Scotland if only they get... What? What will stop the jihadis? If we turn all hospital beds to face Mecca, stop eating in front of Muslims during Ramadan, rid the world of ceramic piggies on window sills, stop drinking alcohol at sidewalk cafes, become more "inclusive".... What will stop the jihadis?

Our problem with jihad is merely technical. Within a week we in the modern West could rid the world of the threat of Islam without a doubt. We could bomb them out of existence and destroy every vestige of them within a month by stopping our foreign aid to the point they simply starve to death. Our problem with jihad is not our problem with jihad: our problem with jihad is our problem with all primitives: we don't want to understand that they are not like us. We are the problem. Eric Edelman is the problem. He and his counterpart Left Death Hippies the Left dhimmi fascist utopians who have o regard for the otherness of others are the problem we face and that we must confront. Until e face ourselves and our disbelief in the authentic difference between our understanding of reality and that of our enemies, we will be our own worst enemies. Not infiltrators like the Muslim brotherhood's Hesham Islam, but his "unwitting boss, deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England" and Eric Edelman and too many others who simply cannot grasp the reality of others as not us. Until we stop playing this silly magic trick on ourselves we will continuously be surprised by our self-delusion.

Sunday, February 10, 2008

Does Islamic Orthopraxy Suck?

Fatwa # 11720 from Zimbabwe

Date: Wednesday, May 26th 2004

Category: Worldly Possessions

Title: I would like to know, is it allowed for a wife to suck her husbands private parts if he is wearing a flavoured condom?

Question: I would like to know, is it allowed for a wife to suck her husbands private parts if he is wearing a flavoured condom? Jazakallah

Answer: Every form of oral sex is against shame and modesty. and Allah Ta'ala Knows Best

Mufti Ebrahim Desai

I found this Islamic ruling at Shiva's blog. It's not well-understood by the world outside Islam that Islam is literally a total way of life. One must realize that Islam demands that one submit to Allah in every minute detail of ones life, and the best way of knowing one is doing it rightly is to follow the examples of Mohammed in his life, Mohammed being the Perfect Man, al-Insan al-Kamil.

Most people have heard of the Koran, though hardly even a few of those who have opinions about Islam have actually read it. The Koran is only one small part of the Sunna. The other parts are the Hadiths and the Sira, the sayings and doings of Mohammed as told by others to others, and the biographies of the life of Mohammed. Those who are shocked and or offended by such as the above think it's ridicule to post such things. Well, yes; but the question above is asked in good faith by a Muslima, (one hopes,) because she wants to know how Mohammed would have acted in this situation, i.e. in referring to the Ahadith and Sira, what do Muslim scholars say Mohammed did or what would he have done. Because even that, as above, is determined by the actions of Mohammed, recorded or inferred, the lady above felt it necessary to ask an imam what he would do in this case, referring, of course, to Mohammed. The questions are unending, as are life's tiny and infinite details. And all of it is guided by the Sunna, the basis of Sharia.

Malise Ruthven terms Islam an orthopraxy as opposed to other religions which are orthodoxies: Islam is a matter of right behavior; while others are a matter of right thinking. In lslam it matters deeply whether one can or cannot, as per above. You want to know about Islam? Ask the imam. He has an answer for everything, a total way of life guided in its most minute details. Nothing is up to you. You, if you are a Muslim, are to submit. Islam is a total way of life.

If you value your freedom at all, give some thought to how you'd like to live under Muslim rule. I opine that Islam sucketh. What would you like to be the flavour of your own life? If you're a Muslim you have no choice in that decision. If you're not a Muslim and don't want to be, consider how you'd like living as a dhimmi under Muslim rule, living as a slave of the Slaves of Allah. If you think tht might not suit you, think of what you might do to prevent it from happening.