My Weblog

September 30, 2006


Filed under: Islam, Terror, Tyrkiet, Western civilisation — limewoody @ 5:16 pm

Whenever Tom Friedman sets aside his partisanship, he pens out a column that demonstrates how well he gets it. He did so today and so I am pasting it bellow. He is right to call for an inter-Muslim dialogue and right in identifying the growing Western wish (expressed not only by the masses) to erect an anti-Muslim wall.At a recent FPRI lecture on Arab media an audience member suggested that the West agree to pull out of all Muslim lands and in return evict all the Muslims leaving in the West. On the train home, I mentioned the surprising comment to my husband. “That’s right,” said the passenger in front of us. “That is precisely what we should do.”

For the papal demand for reciprocity is beginning to echo throughout the land. Friedman writes:

It will be terrible if Turkey is blocked from entering the European Union, but that’s where we’re heading, and the only thing that will halt it is honest dialogue.

Unfortunately, I am not sure Turkey is not blocking itself. For instead of providing ammunition to their EU supporters, Turkey provides it to their opponents by using its courts again and again to stifle speech.

We got used to repeated Turkish attempts to prosecute Turks acknowledging the Armenian holocaust. The charges against two well known writers, Safak and Pamuk, were dropped but the higher court upheld the conviction and a six-month suspended sentence for the less well known Hrant Dink, editor of Agos, a Turkish-Armenian newspaper in Istanbul.

But now we have to ponder the frame of mind of the members of Diyanet-Sen, an imans’ union with the Religious Affairs Directorate, which demands that the authorities launch legal proceeding against the Pope and arrest him when he visits Turkey in November.

And why not, after all, Prime Minister Erdogan has just won a court case against Fethi Dorduncu? Who is Fehti Dorduncu? A man in his eighties who dared write and unflattering comment in the visitors book in Ataturk’s boyhood home in Saloniki, Greece. How did Erdogan respond? He ripped the page out of the book and sued the man in Turkish court. What did the court do? It found him guilty and gave him a large fine, 10,000 lira or $6700. When is all this taking place? In the middle of an election campaign.

Do not worry. Erdogan is not about to lose the elections. Turks do not seem any more offended by this show of their Prime Minister’s vindictive pettiness than Muslims as a whole seem offended by Muslim suicide bombers blowing up Mosques and markets on Ramadan. Something very fundamental must change before we are going to see the kind of inter-Muslim dialogue needed to prevent the world from careening towards a full fledged clash of civilization.

September 29, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist
Islam and the Pope
We need to stop insulting Islam. It’s enough already.

No, that doesn’t mean the pope should apologize. The pope was actually treating Islam with dignity. He was treating the faith and its community as adults who could be challenged and engaged. That is a sign of respect.

What is insulting is the politically correct, kid-gloves view of how to deal with Muslims that is taking root in the West today. It goes like this: “Hushhh! Don’t say anything about Islam! Don’t you understand? If you say anything critical or questioning about Muslims, they’ll burn down your house. Hushhh! Just let them be. Don’t rile them. They are not capable of a civil, rational dialogue about problems in their faith community.”

Now that is insulting. It’s an attitude full of contempt and self-censorship, but that is the attitude of Western elites today, and it’s helping to foster the slow-motion clash of civilizations that Sam Huntington predicted. Because Western masses don’t buy it. They see violence exploding from Muslim communities and they find it frightening, and they don’t think their leaders are talking honestly about it. So many now just want to build a wall against Islam. It will be terrible if Turkey is blocked from entering the European Union, but that’s where we’re heading, and the only thing that will halt it is honest dialogue.

But it is not the dialogue the pope mentioned — one between Islam and Christianity. That’s necessary, but it’s not sufficient. What is needed first is an honest dialogue between Muslims and Muslims.

As someone who has lived in the Muslim world, enjoyed the friendship of many Muslims there and seen the compassionate side of Islam in action, I have to admit I am confused as to what Islam stands for today.

Why? On the first day of Ramadan last year a Sunni Muslim suicide bomber blew up a Shiite mosque in Hilla, Iraq, in the middle of a memorial service, killing 25 worshipers. This year on the first day of Ramadan, a Sunni suicide bomber in Baghdad killed 35 people who were lining up in a Shiite neighborhood to buy fuel. The same day, the severed heads of nine murdered Iraqi police officers and soldiers were found north of Baghdad.

I don’t get it. How can Muslims blow up other Muslims on their most holy day of the year — in mosques! — and there is barely a peep of protest in the Muslim world, let alone a million Muslim march? Yet Danish cartoons or a papal speech lead to violent protests. If Muslims butchering Muslims — in Sudan, Iraq, Egypt, Pakistan and Jordan — produces little communal reaction, while cartoons and papal remarks produce mass protests, what does Islam stand for today? It is not an insult to ask that question.

Muslims might say: “Well, what about Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo or Palestine? Let’s talk about all your violent behavior.” To which I would say: “Let’s talk about it! But you’ll have to get in line behind us, because we’re constantly talking about where we’ve gone wrong.” We can’t have a meaningful dialogue if we, too, are not self-critical, but neither can Muslims.

Part of the problem in getting answers is that Islam has no hierarchy. There is no Muslim pope defining the faith. There are centers of Muslim learning, in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, but their credibility with the masses is uneven because they’re often seen as tools of regimes. So those Muslim preachers with authenticity tend to be the street preachers — firebrands, who gain legitimacy by spewing hatred at both their own regimes and the Western powers that support them.

As a result, there is a huge body of disenfranchised Sunni Muslims, who are neither violent fundamentalists nor wannabe secularists. They are people who’d like to see a marriage between Islam and modernity. But right now there is little free space in the Sunni Muslim world — between the firebrand preachers and the “official” ones — for that synthesis to be discussed and defined.

I had hoped Iraq would be that space. Whenever people asked me how I’d know if we’d won in Iraq, I said: when Salman Rushdie could give a lecture in Baghdad. I’m all for a respectful dialogue between Islam and the West, but first there needs to be a respectful, free dialogue between Muslims and Muslims. What matters is not what Muslims tell us they stand for. What matters is what they tell themselves, in their own languages, and how they treat their own.

Without a real war of ideas within Islam to sort that out — a war that progressives win — I fear we are drifting at best toward a wall between civilizations and at worst toward a real clash.


Filed under: Art, Uncategorized — limewoody @ 7:57 am


When they clear old farmland
for development,
sometimes they leave
the ancient trees,

Marking the border
for a vanished family,
standing guard
over the play yard
of long-dead ghost children.

Threads of rotted rope are
caught in the branches of the
silent sentinels.

These bits of twine flutter
in the wind,
and I feel a child’s breath
at my back,
and I rub at the dust
in my eyes.


Prop Jihate in GazaHamas: Better all die than ever recognize Israel (in any border)

Filed under: Global Jihad, Islam, Sprog, Terror, Uncategorized — limewoody @ 7:52 am

Tens of thousands of Hamas supporters held a peaceful rally in Gaza on
Friday to denounce the state of Israel and declare that they would never
recognize its right to exist.

“We ask God to punish the so-called Israel and the allies of Israel and to
punish those who recognize Israel and those who called on us to recognize
Israel,” Hamas lawmaker Mushir al-Masri told the crowd that thronged the
Jabalya refugee camp.

“We vow to God that we will never recognise Israel even if we would be all
killed,” Masri told the cheering audience of men, women and children, many
of whom were wearing green Hamas baseball caps and held aloft Hamas banners.

Masri, a popular young lawmaker, also aimed criticism at Fatah, a rival
movement headed by Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, saying it
was trying to pressure Hamas, which now runs the Palestinian government,
into recognizing Israel.

“Those people are demanding us openly to recognize the occupation and that
will never happen,” Masri said.

Hamas and Fatah have held talks in recent weeks over the possibility of
forming a unity government, but those negotiations now appear to have almost
completely broken down.

“The protest aims to stress our rejection to recognize the legitimacy of the
occupation,” Masri said, referring to what Hamas views as Israel’s
occupation of all historic Palestine.

Hamas, which is regarded as a terrorist organization by the United States,
European Union and Israel, has struggled to run the government since it came
to power in March because of financial sanctions imposed by the West against

Hamas came to power after winning elections in January.

Most of the Palestinian government’s 170,000 employees, including tens of
thousands of security staff, have largely gone unpaid for the past seven

It was hoped that the formation of a unity government with the more moderate
Fatah movement might have led to the lifting of at least some of the

In recent weeks, protests have been held against Hamas’s government
throughout the West Bank and Gaza, with teachers, doctors and other
essential workers going on strike to demand the payment of their salaries.

“The protest is against the siege and against the attempts by some to carry
out a coup against the government,” Masri said, again apparently referring
to pressure from Fatah.

Loud speakers played songs supporting Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, a
senior Hamas figure, during the rally and Masri vowed that Hamas’s
administration would go on governing no matter how much pressure was applied
to it.

“This government and the leadership of Hamas of the Palestinian people will
continue throughout its legal term, for four years,” Masri said.


We will take care of him…….

Filed under: Satire, Uncategorized — limewoody @ 7:46 am

It’s the Idomeneo effect: increase security then watch the consequences

Filed under: AntiJihad, Uncategorized — limewoody @ 7:42 am

I DON’T KNOW much about opera, but I know what I don’t like. I don’t like spinelessness, as in the scrapping of a Mozart opera by Deutsche Oper in Berlin for fear of an Islamic backlash. And I don’t like scapegoating, as in politicians lambasting the opera house director for censorship when she is only giving an artistic interpretation of their own paranoid politics of fear.The decision to drop Mozart’s Idomeneo, because the production features the decapitated head of Muhammad (along with those of Jesus, Buddha and Poseidon), is a dramatic exhibition of cultural cowardice. We might call it pre-emptive grovelling. No Muslim had uttered a word of protest. But one anonymous operagoer, who saw an earlier production, told police that he felt Muslims might be offended. Kirsten Harms, the Deutsche Oper director, then cancelled it, blaming an “ incalculable security risk”.


Who needs book burners or theatre-door protesters when Europe’s cultural elite is prepared to tear up scripts or turn out the lights? Should we send the sensitivity police into the libraries and theatres to weed out all references to religion in general and Islam in particular? The disputed scene is not in the original opera, but was added a couple of years ago. It sounds like clunky “political” meddling. But freedom of expression must include the liberty to make bad art, too, no matter whom it might offend.

The Berlin opera affair has become a cause célèbre for German politicians. The Interior Minister called the decision “crazy”; Angela Merkel, the Chancellor, said that “self-censorship out of fear is intolerable”. But it wasn’t the opera director who invented the notion that Europe’s culture should prostrate itself to avoid offending Islam. She need only have noted the furore surrounding what Pope Benedict XVI said about Islam.

The Catholic Church took 350 years to revoke the historic condemnation of Galileo, with no apology; the current Pope took two days to distance himself from words he used at a German academic event, and apologise for any offence.

And where could Harms have got the “crazy” idea that Muslims might blow themselves up at her opera house? It was the police and the interior minister for Berlin who warned her of possible “dire consequences” if the opera went ahead. Now they try to blame her for overreacting and say there was no “specific threat”. Presumably if some crank had threatened to bomb the opera, they would deem a ban appropriate.

Chancellor Merkel’s defence of freedom also seems two-faced. She has long lectured Germans about shifting the emphasis from liberty to security in the War on Terror, has declared terrorism the greatest threat facing Europe — greater then the Cold War — and called for a crackdown across Europe. She may now call it intolerable to give way to fear over an opera. But political actors such as her helped to write the script for that melodramatic panic in Berlin.

  • WHEN I was at school, science teachers tended to be a bit odd. One sported a crew-cut and spats, another used a necktie to hold up his trousers. But they knew their subjects well enough to educate a lab-brat like me. In a survey published on my website,, more than a hundred experts were asked what influenced them to take up science. Many pointed to inspiring teachers (who often did experiments deemed too risky today).Such teachers are now an endangered species. A campaign launched this week by top science institutions claims that Britain risks “losing a generation of scientists”. A subject such as A-level physics, they say, is “under siege”, with 37 per cent fewer students taking it than 15 years ago, and that there is a crying need for more specialist teachers in schools.

    The shortage of committed science teachers hardly seems surprising, however, when we are beset by warnings that scientific advance poses a risk to human health and the environment, and when the emphasis in public discussion is less on the wonders of science than worries about side-effects. Schools focus on “science literacy” rather than hard science, which means more ethical hand-wringing than hands-on experiments.

    We are right to be concerned as to what schools are teaching our children about science. But what are we teaching the teachers?


    Holy Challenge

    Filed under: Western civilisation — limewoody @ 7:40 am

    Pope Benedict XVI’s native tongue contains an apt term for this week’s meeting with diplomats from Muslim-majority states accredited to the Holy See. A Schlussstrich literally means the bottom line separating a column of figures from the sum below; and, more colloquially, the readiness to close one episode or chapter in life in order to open the next (by “drawing a line under the past,” according to a common German expression). As the pope brought to a close — at least for now — the uproar that followed his September 12 remarks on faith and reason in Regensburg, he reiterated yet again his very precise bottom line for future dialogue with the Muslim world.

    Benedict’s brief remarks, delivered in French as a courtesy to his interlocutors, are fully intelligible only in the light of the four ecclesial texts he cites or quotes from. Only in that context do the Holy Father’s remarks permit the following conclusions.

    First, dialogue merely for its own sake is a thing of the past. Benedict quotes extensively from Nostra Aetate (“In these our times”), the Second Vatican Council’s 1965 declaration on inter-religious relations, which the Holy Father calls the “Magna Carta” for relations between Roman Catholics and Muslims. This document is, however, best known as providing the basis for the unprecedented — and fortunately continuing — rapprochement between the Roman Catholic Church and the Jewish people.

    A bit of history is in order. The Council originally intended to address the Jewish people as part of a broader treatment of ecumenism (strictly speaking, relations among the various Christian churches and denominations). Later, there evolved a wholly separate document dealing exclusively with the Jews, to which a much briefer section (roughly four times shorter) was added at the last minute addressing Muslims (which in turn was inserted partly at the insistence of prelates from the Middle East fearing reprisals against Christian minorities if Islam went unacknowledged).

    What’s relevant is that Jews and Muslims occupy wholly separate categories in Catholic thought. Nostra Aetate acknowledges “the spiritual ties that link the people of the New Covenant [Christians] with the stock of Abraham [Jews].” More specifically, “Christians and Jews have such a common spiritual heritage,” grounded in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), that joint “biblical and theological enquiry” is very much in order.

    There is, however, no such “common spiritual heritage” between Christianity and Islam (especially since orthodox Muslims hold that the Quran wholly supercedes and replaces the Bible). In fact, the Council Fathers merely note that “the Church also has a high regard for the Muslims” while carefully prescinding from any comment on Islam as such. (Benedict repeats this formulation almost word for word in his September 25 remarks.) In comparison with ecumenical dialogue with other Christians (with whom reunion remains the ultimate goal in accordance with Jn 17:21-22) and inter-religious dialogue with Jews (with whom both genuine theological and practical collaboration is possible), dialogue with Muslims is by nature limited to such purely practical initiatives — above all, forging agreed rules of the road for avoiding conflict — that Benedict raises in two carefully chosen quotations.

    The upshot is that purely theological dialogue between Christians and Muslims is pointless, if not counterproductive. Whatever its other attributes, the most fundamental elements of all orthodox Christian thought are Trinitarian and Christocentric; and these are precisely the same elements that orthodox Muslims necessarily find blasphemous on the one hand and idolatrous on the other. What’s more, sharia jurisprudence plays roughly the same role in Islam as systematic theology in Christianity. That’s why purely theological dialogue inevitably mixes apples and oranges. But basic disagreement over the nature of God in no way precludes discussing how best to coexist peacefully in a pluralistic world. That’s the meaning of Benedict’s September 25 exhortation in favor of “sincere and respectful dialogue, based on ever more authentic reciprocal knowledge which, with joy, recognizes the religious values we have in common and, with loyalty, respects the differences.” In other words, it’s possible to share — and discuss — certain religious values without sharing religious truths.

    Similarly, fruitful dialogue does not consist in futilely seeking to assign relative responsibility for religious conflicts lasting more than a millennium. These historical issues — all too easily reduced to whataboutery or the politics of the last atrocity — have rightly been relegated to a joint Vatican/al Azhar commission. What really matters, as Benedict put it in another address he quotes, is the “imperative to engage in authentic and sincere dialogue, built on respect for the dignity of every human person, created, as we Christians firmly believe, in the image and likeness of God.” Do Muslims believe in the equal, indivisible, and inviolable dignity of every person, or are some (namely Muslim males) more equal than others?

    Second, the Holy Father identifies religiously-motivated violence as an urgent agenda item, as he did quite forcefully in a little-noticed address to German Muslim leaders in Cologne in August 2005. In fact, one of the reasons why Benedict quoted the now-famous passage from a hitherto forgotten Byzantine emperor was to point out that jihad — in the sense of armed conflict for religious reasons — remains a living element of Islamic thought and life, while all Christian churches long ago set their faces against holy war in favor of the just war tradition (with its wholly secular categories) or outright pacifism.

    Third, Benedict identifies religious freedom as perhaps the most urgent single issue for Christian/Muslim dialogue. He quotes his predecessor, John Paul II, speaking to young people in 1985 at Casablanca: “Respect and dialogue require reciprocity in all spheres, especially in that which concerns basic freedoms, more particularly religious freedom.”

    Toward the end of his John Paul II’s pontificate, the Vatican rather belatedly began seeking reciprocal treatment for Christian and other religious minorities in Muslim-majority states. It is an unfortunate fact that these minorities all suffer varying degrees of discrimination — and in far too many cases, outright persecution — while Muslim minorities in the West enjoy the same religious and other freedoms as their fellow citizens. Benedict put it very plainly in his Cologne address: “The defense of religious freedom … is a permanent imperative, and respect for minorities is a clear sign of true civilization.” That’s a polite way of saying that mistreatment of minorities is a mark of barbarism.

    Look for Benedict to raise more forcefully — and publicly — the plight of Christians and other minorities in the Muslim world. In the case of Saudi Arabia, for instance, lack of reciprocity means that there’s not a single church (or publicly-acknowledged Christian cleric) in the kingdom while Saudi money funded a gargantuan $30 million mosque in Rome erected several years ago with the Vatican’s tacit consent. But the situation is actually far more dire, since at least one million Christian expatriates working in Saudi Arabia (many are Filipinos and south Asians) are prohibited even from private worship, much less any public expression of their faith (such as wearing a crucifix or even possessing a Bible). These unfortunates — whose plight I became familiar with while living and working in Jordan — are denied any pastoral care whatsoever in circumstances that the local bishop (based elsewhere, of course) rightly called “reminiscent of the catacombs.”

    Fourth, Benedict quite delicately raises the pressing question of who exactly speaks for Islam. He observes that the September 25 meeting was attended by “religious authorities” on the Catholic side and “political leaders” on the Muslim side. Not only does the pope have no counterpart in the Muslim world, there’s nothing remotely equivalent to the Roman Catholic episcopal hierarchy and ordained priesthood (though Iran’s unique religio-political set-up bears some surface resemblances). At the same time, there are Muslim clerics who play enormously important political roles, either directly or indirectly (consider the respective roles of Iraq’s Abdul Azziz al-Hakim and Grand Ayatollah Ali Hussein al-Sistani, for instance). In fact, one of Italy’s most respected and perceptive columnists, the Egyptian-born Magdi Allam, gently chided the pope for in effect mixing apples and oranges (link in Italian). But meeting with Muslim diplomats accredited to the Holy See is a better approach than presuming to pick and choose among Muslim clerical leaders.

    Finally, it’s relevant that the Holy Father has begun to install prelates in whom he has confidence at the highest levels of the Roman curia. This may seem like inside baseball, but personnel is policy. Earlier this month Benedict installed two prelates now serving in effect as his prime minister and foreign minister. Relations with the Muslim world were just one factor in these selections, but that was decidedly not the case with Benedict’s earlier replacement of the midlevel long cleric responsible for dialogue with Islam (a British prelate widely regarded as overly accommodating). Look for much closer coordination — regrettably absent in the past — between Vatican officials responsible for inter-religious dialogue and Vatican diplomats responsible for state-to-state relations between the Holy See and Muslim-majority states.

    Perhaps the Muslim diplomats gathered at Castel Gandolfo this week were expecting some further expression of “regret” for the “reaction” of their co-religionists to the Regensburg remarks. What they got instead is a challenge.

    — John F. Cullinan formerly served as a senior foreign-policy adviser to the U.S. Catholic bishops.


    September 29, 2006

    Filed under: AntiJihad — limewoody @ 5:50 pm

    Pope in ‘Crusader conspiracy’ with Bush

    Filed under: Global Jihad, Islam, Terror — limewoody @ 5:49 pm

     Pope in ‘Crusader conspiracy’ with Bush
    Sheik: ‘Only dialogue we want is when all religions agree to convert to Islam’

    JERUSALEM – Pope Benedict XVI’s meeting this week with a delegation of Muslim leaders and his calls for interfaith dialogue following earlier remarks about Islam are really “Crusader conspiracies” to subjugate the Islamic faith and force “Christian-Zionist” worldviews upon Muslims, a prominent Gaza Strip preacher told WorldNetDaily in an interview.

    Sheik Abu Saqer, leader of Gaza’s Jihadia Salafiya Islamic outreach movement, which seeks to make secular Muslims more religious, called the pope a “puppet” for “that Crusader George Bush.”

    The Gaza imam said the only Christian-Muslim dialogue that is acceptable is one in which “all religions agree to convert to Islam.”  

    “The call for so-called dialogue by this little racist pope is a Trojan horse with the main goal of reaching a new system in which the ideals [of Christianity] are a new ideology that will rule relations between nations and people. The dialogue he wants is dangerous,” said Abu Saqer, speaking to WND from the southern Gaza city of Khan Yunis.

    “The pope is the spiritual and religious wing of the Crusader ideology,” Abu Saqer said. “He is totally coordinated with Bush. Through this dialogue he hopes to break the lines of unity between Muslims and polarize the Muslim world, which has some partisans who will accept this new dialogue. But true believers know Islam must rule all relations. The only dialogue we will accept is when all other religions agree to convert to Islam.”

    The pope has been drawing fire from Muslims worldwide for a speech he gave two weeks ago in which he quoted Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus, who wrote, “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”

    The pontiff last week said he was “deeply sorry” for the reaction to his comments and later explained the emperor’s words did not reflect how he himself felt. He said the intent of his remarks was to call for a dialogue on the role of religions in modern life.

    Benedict XVI on Monday held an unprecedented meeting with a group of 20 Muslim leaders in a bid to calm anger that has spilled over into international Muslim protests. The envoys invited to the Vatican included leaders from major Muslim countries such as Indonesia, Egypt, Pakistan, Turkey, Iran and Iraq, and from the Arab League.

    But keeping the controversy alive, an organization of 56 Islamic nations yesterday pressed Benedict once again to apologize for his original comments. Foreign ministers of the Organization of the Islamic Conference approved a statement urging the Vatican to “retract or redress” the pope’s citation of Paleologus.

    In all his responses to the controversy, the pope has not directly apologized for his original statements quoting a scholar linking Muslims to violence.

    Following the comments Muslims worldwide protested, some violently.

    An elderly Catholic nun was shot dead in Somalia, with many speculating the attack was in response to the pope’s speech. Palestinians wielding guns and firebombs attacked five churches in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, including Anglican and Greek Orthodox churches in the north Samaria city of Nablus and a Greek Orthodox church in Gaza City. A group calling itself the “Lions of Monotheism” claimed responsibility for the church attacks, saying the violence was carried out to protest the pope’s remarks.

    In an interview with WND last week, Abu Saqer called for holy war against the pope. He declared the “green flag of Muhammad” would soon be raised over the Vatican.

    “We did not need the words of the pope in order to understand that this is a Crusader war against Islam and it is our holy duty to fight all those who support the pope, who follow him and who did not condemn what this small racist had to say,” said Abu Saqer.

    “The day will soon come when the green flag of La Illah Illah Allah (There is no god but Allah) and Muhammad Rasul Allah (Muhammad is the prophet of Allah) will be raised upon the Vatican and all around the world and on the fortresses of those who want to destroy Islam, because they know that this religion obliges them to face the truth that Islam is Allah’s favorite religion. And until they join Islam, hell is their last station,” Abu Saqer said.

    The Gaza preacher said he rejected the pope’s stated apologies.

    “He did not apologize. He said everything but an apology, which proves these are diplomatic acts and not a feeling of being sorry.”

    Abu Saqer claimed he did not condone violence. He blamed the pope for recent anti-Christian attacks in the Palestinian territories.

    “We are deeply sorry for these acts that we condemn,” he said. “But I am sorry that this little racist did not think of the consequences upon the Christians in the Arab world when he insulted our prophet. It is an open war – the Muslims against all the others.”

    Asked to respond directly to Paleologus’ observations about Muhammad and Islam, Abu Saqer replied, “About your stupid question about our contribution to civilization, did not you read about who were the pioneers in medicine, in mathematics, in astronomy? Did not you hear about Averroes and others?

    “I am not reading poetry, I am saying the truth. Islam, it is not the source of violence. Who is occupying by force and violence Iraq and Afghanistan? Who is occupying Palestine? Who occupied for years the black people and turned them into slaves while one of the first leaders of Islam was the black Bilal Ibn Rabah?”

    Continued Abu Saqer: “Violence is a result of lack of faith. See the Western society and culture. See what free sex brings to your Western world and then see the family cell in Islam. Even our problems in Islam come when some parts of the Islamic population want to imitate your way of life.”

    Abu Saqer said the pope and the Christian world are “panicking” because they realize “who is winning.”

    “See how Islam is progressing and gaining more and more members and see the moral crisis in the West,” he said. “See today the support of Islam in the Arab and Muslim world and how Islam is gaining more and more adherents in Europe and even in the United States and you understand that Islam is the future and that this dwarf pope was wrong. But I can sympathize with him. He is frustrated because he understands where things are heading.”

    Just a wee little Intifada Jihate in Belgium…

    Filed under: Global Jihad, Islam, Terror — limewoody @ 6:24 am

    De gesloopte BMW met Belgisch kenteken.    Foto WFA


    Hizbollah Gets International Help – Les Frewnch bien sur

    Filed under: Uncategorized — limewoody @ 6:21 am

    Clashes erupted Thursday between IDF forces and French troops from the multinational force (UNIFIL) currently stationed in Lebanon, the Al- Jazeera television network reported.

    Reportedly, the IDF soldiers had infiltrated 150 meters deep into Lebanese territory to the Maji Iyun area.

    UNIFIL denied the report.

    Jerusalem Post

    Older Posts »

    Create a free website or blog at