Surprise, surprise

The presidential "candidate whose middle name happens to be Hussein," according to a study reported in this article from whence the preceding quoted phrase was taken, received 89 percent of the Muslim vote on Nov. 4.

Many Muslim Americans also changed their party affiliations for this election. The country's Muslim population, estimated at between 7 to 8 million, has traditionally voted along conservative, Republican lines. Today, more than two thirds of American Muslims polled say they consider themselves to be Democrats, while only 4 percent see themselves as Republicans (29 percent identified themselves as Independents.) The shift began in 2004—in part because of the GOP's mishandling of civil liberties, from wiretapping American citizens to detaining Muslims in the United States and Guantanamo without trial, and because of the war in Iraq. This year, many more were drawn into the Democratic party by Obama himself. Muslims across the country were captivated by the senator's promise of unity and hope. On the Muslim-Americans for Obama Web site (Mafo2008.com), their mission statement includes the following: "That we support Barack Obama because, among other reasons, he rejects the politics of fear, challenging our nation to embrace its collective identity, where each American has a stake in the success and well-being of every American."

Yes, I can see where Muslims in America seeking Muslim empowerment in America would support the candidate whose middle name just happens to consist of a random arrangement of a random selection and number of consonates and vowels plucked at random from the English alphabet. But the joke's on them, right. The arrangement of the letters in the president-elect's middle name has no actual relation to Islam or to Muslims. And so what if it did, right? According to Colin Powell that's not America, and therefore not American, those elements in America which prefer those that just happen to be their own kind, that just happen to be closer to their own complexion, those who just happen to have names resembling their own, and whose religious upbringing just happens to most resemble their own.

Read More

If Li is a Muslim will we ever know it?

Auster has been keeping a close watch on this situation at VFR and I appreciate his coverage. Here's what I wrote to Mr. Auster under the VFR thread "Why we will never learn the truth, cont.":

TM writes to LA:

I personally think it's a lot more likely that we will learn the truth about Li's religious history than it is that the Canadian government will be able to successfully hide that information from public knowledge, particularly as time goes on. I also think that the Canadian public is likely to dismiss Li's act as having any direct connection to the Muslim religion; that they will look upon it as simply coincidental that Li is a professing Muslim, and that Li's act, the product of a "disturbed", perhaps even "psychotic", mind has nothing in reality to do with his faith; that Mr. Li is simply an extreme exception to the rule and that it's completely unfair to Muslims and to their religion, "religion of peace" that it is, to make such an association.

I really doubt that the Canadian government believes that the Canadian People, reeling from the shock of what just happened in their country, will, based on that single occurrence, make demands on their government to place tighter restrictions on Muslim immigration to Canada. Indeed, I'd lay down good money that the government of Canada knows good and well that Canadians are an excessively "tolerant" and "fair" people, which is to say that the Canadian government knows that its society is thoroughly liberalized.

And LA replies to me under the thread.

Read More

No additional posts at Webster's today

We've got a long day ahead of us so there won't be any additional posts put up today. However, for anyone who hasn't been following the discussion on Moderate Muslims Found, you might want to check it out.

MAS, in a (hopefully departing) comment to the thread has answered Anonymous with this tripe:

I have absolutely no problem with TM being a bigot as long as his bigotry does not manifest itself in actions.

Now, I would simply ask you, which one of us is the more likely to manifest his views in actions, as MAS puts it, a "bigot" like myself, or a "non-bigot" like MAS? The one who's exercised self-restraint, or the one who hasn't? I suggest to you that if MAS (in a message forum where ample opportunity is given to either post a comment or to not post a comment; to think about what he's written before posting -- that's all up to the individual doing the commenting) is incapable of exercising self-restraint in an online forum such as this, particularly when the non-exercise of such restraint can do nothing but harm his position and indict his character, that such a non-self-governing individual is the more likely candidate for the exercise of violent extremism.

The simple fact of the matter is this, when posting a comment to a thread online, it is you and only you who is responsible for the content of the message, irregardless of how much you think your opponent is provoking you. It takes very little self-restraint to avoid posting a comment containing foul language. And that's the bottom line here. It gives us an insight into the low character of someone like MAS. Indeed, MAS has not even as much as offered an apology for what he said. He just continues to be belligerent and condescending and insulting, which is yet another indication of his low character.

Read More

Moderate Muslims Found!

There's a group out there calling itself Muslims Against Sharia, claiming it has the prescription for what constitutes a moderate Muslim.

Now, as you might expect, I'm seeing all kinds of problems with this group and its claims. The basic question that comes to mind is whether this group subscribes to the Five Pillars of Islam. If it does, we have a problem. If it doesn't, we have a problem. In any event, we have a problem.

On the other hand, one might look on this group and/or its leader as the new 'prophet' through which Allah has chosen to abrogate his former revelations which came by way of what was supposed to be his final prophet and messenger, Mohammed, according to Islamic tradition. In other words, the group, in order to fulfill its vision of Islam (which I'm calling Non-Islam Islam) it would have to be successful in carrying out a major Islam-wide plot of deception, basically claiming that Allah never endorsed the violent nature of Islam, and certainly never meant to transmit this false endorsement through his final prophet, Mohammed. Many, many revisions to the Quran would have to be made, and so on and so forth. More problems than I can detail here.

We've been discussing this over at Brave New World Watch. So if anyone has anything to add to the discussion, that might be the place to go. But you're certainly welcome to post a comment here if you like.

Read More