By Beila Rabinowitz, Director - Wahabi Watch
Pseudo-scholar and historical revisionist Ali Mazrui, is being foisted upon students as part of a course requirement in the guise of providing a cartoon ?Muslim counter-balance" to Dr. Daniel Pipes? impeccable Middle Eastern scholarship.
It is a poor commentary on the state of America?s universities when protests against the upcoming lecture by Dr. Daniel Pipes, the distinguished scholar, and member of the United States Institute of Peace, are being heard months in advance of his lecture at RIT while scrutiny of another scheduled lecturer, Ali Mazrui, reveals that he is a leading figure in numerous radical Islamist organizations which have been raided in connection with terrorism.
Ali Mazrui?s documented connections to radical Islam should prompt The Catherine Werner Gannet Lecture Series coordinator, Dr. Paul Grebinger to withdraw his invitation to speak at the Rochester Institute of Technology Campus on the grounds that Ali Mazrui is a propagandist whose Islamist agenda renders his message devoid of scholarly integrity and precludes the possibility of an honest exchange of ideas.
Ali Mazrui is a radical Islamist who lectured last year at the Bin Laden funded ICPI - International Center for he Propagation of Islam, whose founder and director, Ahmed Deedat - and his son Yusuf - are directly funded by the Bin Laden family and have boasted about meeting Bin Laden 'several times'.
Besides being a guest speaker at the Deedat's Bin Laden Centre, Mazrui is also on the board of the Association of Muslim Social Services, the sister organization of the IIIT - The International Institute of Islamic Thought, a Wahabist Islamic propagation front which was raided by the FBI and the JTTF in 2003 for ties to the funding of terror. The executive secretary of the AMSS is Kamran Bokhari, the North American spokesman for the group Al Muhajiroun, which Dr. Pipes cites as "one of the most extremist groups operating in the west today"
For more information on the AMSS and the CSID see AMSS & CSID
The controversy surrounding the Gannet Lecture Series at RIT, featuring Dr. Pipes and Ali Mazrui was sparked by an interview in student newspaper called ?The Left Hook," which published an interview with members of the Campus Anti War Network. In that interview their North Atlantic Representative, Monique Dols, disingenuously stated that ? in order to graduate, seniors will be forced to listen to a lecture by Daniel Pipes.
Dols failed to mention the fact that while some RIT senior students are required to attend the lecture series as part of their coursework, they have the same obligation to attend the lecture of Dr. Pipes as that of Ali Mazrui. One of the interviewees was the Campus Anti War Net?s representative on the RIT campus, Josh Karpoff, who did nothing to refute Dols? false claims.
Gannett lecture series organizer Dr. Paul Grebinger and the RIT Provost Simone have been on the defensive justifying their invitation to Dr. Pipes, while the real focus of condemnation and concern should be the invitation of Binghamton professor, Ali Mazrui, whose revisionist pseudo-scholarship disqualifies him from the role of someone who can, in the words of the organizers, '"provide a counterbalance to Dr. Pipe?s views." Even a cursory examination of Ali Mazrui's work and associations shows that he is a radical Islamist with no commitment to either intellectual honesty or open debate.
Mazrui's statement in support of ex University of South Florida professor/jailbird Sami Al Arian are indicative of his intellectual dishonesty and academic bankruptcy. The charges of terrorism against Al Arian documented in voluminous indictment which includes the names of nearly 100 murder victims of terrorist attacks, including that of Brandeis University student Alisa Flatow - in a bus bombing financed by him and his group Palestinian Islamic Jihad - was dismissed by Mazrui who lamented that:
RIT's hosting of Ali Mazrui under the guise of ?balance" is similar to the disingenuous excuses given by the administration of Duke University, who defended their hosting of an Islamist conference under the guise of the need to provide a forum for ?other views." The Duke conference ended up being not only a terrorist recruiting event for the International Solidarity Movement, but the Duke University administration?s defense of the conference unleashed a wave of anti-Semitism and conflict which continues to engulf the campus. The situation at Duke was summed up in this opinion piece in a recent Wall Street Journal article entitled: "The Intifada Comes to Duke :
"...Moreover, and whether or not a university has a duty to license the unfettered expression on its campus of every venomous notion under the sun, the real issue at Duke was always the refusal of the licensing authorities to call such notions by their proper names--in this case, bald anti-Semitism and incitement to the murder of innocents. That refusal on the part of the university and its president, a mark not of "constructive" liberality but of cowardice and complicity, is what led infallibly to the post-conference outbreak of anti-Jewish hatred. Once the guardians of the citadel granted permission to open the gates, is it any surprise that the in the case of Duke the marauding hordes came storming through?"
Mazrui is not only an anti-Semite, but an active participant in groups and a member of organizations which have been accused of funding terrorism. There are zero degrees of separation between Mazrui giving two lectures at the Osama Bin Laden funded International Center for the Propagation of Islam in South Africa - whose director, Ahmed Deedat, and son Yusuf, boasted of having met and received funding from Osama bin Laden, and his family - as there are between Mazrui?s being a lecturer and member of the board of directors of the Graduate School for Islamic and Social Sciences which:
?? Operation Green Quest investigators raided (GSISS offices) in March 2002, along with 23 other organizations. According to search warrants, federal agents suspected GSISS and the others of potential money laundering and tax evasion activities and their ties to terrorists groups such as al Qaeda as well as individual terrorists [including] Osama bin Laden?"
Additionally, Mazrui is also listed as a member of the ?international advisory board" of a dubious institution called ?The Center for Balanced Development," an offshoot of the IPO- International Progress Institute, run by an Islamo-facist, Hans Koechler, whose personal photo page shows him together with a bevy of international terrorists and tyrant such as Arafat, Saddam Hussein, and Ghaddafi, whom he visited accompanied with Ramsey Clark. The IPO website can be navigated to link to groups such as the Arab Socialists, whose site includes a page entitled - ?!0 Reasons Why Killing Israeli Jews is Kosher" - which ended with the message ?Indeed those human bombs are not only justified - more of them is (sic) needed." and signed "More later - Ibrahim Alloush."
Mazrui's working relationship with Koechler is further proof of his radicalism, as is the case of his ties to Ahmed Deedat.
Obviously, he has no problems with groups and individuals who openly support suicide bombings.
The administration of the Rochester Institute of Technology should go beyond due diligence in the interests of homeland security and take into account the damage which will be done to the integrity of their institution by hosting Ali Mazrui. His ties to an institute funded by Osama Bin Laden and his role as a board member of several institutions which have been raided in connection with terror funding makes a mockery of the democratic spirit of debate and open exchange of ideas which the administration of RIT claims their institution is aiming to promote.
How Multiculturalism Kills And Why You Should CAIR, Part II - Patterns Of Deception
By William A. Mayer, Editor & Publisher - PipeLineNews.org
As we further explore the issue of America?s societal response to Islam and other non-indigenous philosophies, it must be noted that what is being passed off in many quarters as "interfaith outreach" is really just another facet of the multiculturalist/moral relativist agenda, which was explored at length in part I of this series. This movement is the lead weapon in the left's war on traditional culture, simply because on its face it sounds so reasonable.
One can hardly be unaware that much effort is being made across our institutions to ?sell" the Muslim faith, representing it as no more threatening than main-stream Judaism or Christianity. Some - even in the Christian community - making the leap that Judaism, Christianity and Islam share an ?Abrahamic tradition," - that the ?Muslim nation" is comprised of the children of Abraham?s first son Ishmael whose mother, Hagar was Abraham?s Egyptian maidservant, and that as a result, the three faiths actually share the same familial heritage.
We will leave that dry argument to Biblical scholars and intellectual discourse beyond the scope of this piece.
In part one of this series we stated that in the real world, the burden of proof as to the nature of ?modern" Islam must rightly fall upon those making the claims as well as the forthrightness of their representations.
That is of primary importance.
If the faith?s current group of spokesmen, in general, tells the truth and lead lives which are morally admirable, then that lends significant weight to their arguments. Conversely if it is seen that those who engage in the faith spreading Muslim doctrine called Da?wa, make conflicting statements in different venues and languages and if their personal probity is suspect then the strengths of their claims are necessarily undercut.
We revisit the case of Florida's Universal Heritage Foundation because it is so clearly demonstrates the chasm between words and actions in the multiculuralist universe.
Zulfiqar Ali Shah has for some time now been a proponent, in many varied settings, of presenting the Muslim faith as a moderate religion. Shah has held leadership roles in important Muslim organizations and as the director of the Universal Heritage Foundation in Kissimmee Florida, seeks to do that on an even grander scale.
Shah has been quoted in various venues as having made what could at best be called intemperate remarks regarding Jews, Christians and religious based terrorism, which, if true seem to place him in the camp of the Islamists. He has denied making such statements, making the usual objections - that he never said such things and/or that he has been either partially or totally misquoted etc.
Mr. Shah is marginally involved in a case that we have been exploring now for over a year; it involves a Florida based Muslim owned corporate conglomerate called Super Stop Petroleum. Among a withering array of holdings, Super Stop owns a 31 acre parcel of commercial property in Kissimmee. A portion of this property was leased to Lee Wasson?s Celebration Worship Christian School by the previous owners and Super Stop subsumed the lease in bankruptcy court.
At some point Super Stop allowed Shah and the UHF to act as its agent with regard to Wasson.
Immediately thereafter the power and utilities were cut off to Wasson?s Christian school, which obviously wreaked havoc with the schools enrollment of approximately 140 students. Deprived of power and sewer services, and combined with the supposition that the new landlords might very well be militant Muslims [UHF was at that time promoting large Islamic conferences featuring speakers whom many claimed were of the extremist Wahabi sect of Islam] as a result many of the student?s parents took what they thought was the prudent course and withdrew them, feeling them possibly in great physical jeopardy.
Suits and counter suits have been filed in this matter and we do not want to continue to revisit them here, for a fuller explication please visit:
For some reason instead of letting the matter proceed through the courts, Shah has taken to the Internet and there has attempted to present the case in a light favorable to UHF and Super Stop.
Shah understands that UHF is really on trial here. His organization suffered a huge loss in credibility when UHF?s inaugural conference was widely labeled ? even in the main stream media ? as a jihad-fest and he wants to make sure it does not happen again with these lawsuits.
On a series of electronic bulletin board systems Shah has made two claims.
1. That the dispute between Wasson and Super Stop is merely a landlord/tenant matter involving Wasson?s non-payment of rent.
2. That if the back rent were paid, then Super Stop would welcome Wasson back to the property and the facility which previously housed it.
It is odd that Shah and UHF are getting involved with this and apparently speaking for Super Stop since he is not one of the main antagonists, but it is extremely instructive to parse Shah?s claims and see how they hold up when compared to the facts because they directly bear on his claim of being a moderate.
Shah?s statements, made in these Internet forums take identical form:
?The Pastor had financial difficulties and had been unable to pay the rent. That is why the owner, Super stop Petroleum, sent him legal collection notices. They gave him the legal eviction notice through the court after being unable to collect the rent. The KCA left in February of 2004 on its own though the lease was to expire on July 15, 2004.
The space is still available and the owner gives the assurance that they are willing to lease the property to Kissimmee Christian Academy on the same old terms and conditions if the KCA is willing to pay the outstanding amounts and bills. This is a rent dispute and has absolutely nothing to do with the religion. I will strongly recommend and actually earnestly request Pastor Lee Wasson to stick to the true Christian spirit, pay the outstanding bills to the owner, and come back to the facility. For God?s sake, do not use faith to try to get cheap publicity or run away from financial responsibilities. Faith is higher than these petty material gains?[if the ?back rent" is paid] The staff of Universal Heritage will be extremely happy to see Kissimmee Christian Academy come back to the facility and enjoy a good friendly relationship with them?" Comment by Zulfiqar A. Shah ? November 22, 2004 @ 11:04 AM.
It cannot be argued that the Pastor, Lee Wasson, did not have severe ?financial difficulties," Super Stop and Ali Shah caused them by having the utilities shut off and depriving Wasson?s students the use of their school.
Wasson operated under the aforementioned lease, with Super Stop as the landlord, for six months. For the first four of the six months involved, from July through October 2003 Wasson dutifully paid Super Stop $5,000 on time, each and every month. Super Stop did not hesitate to cash Wasson?s checks.
Given the nature of the landlord?s actions in terminating the utilities and the resultant swirling lawsuits, upon advice of his attorney?s Wasson remitted the November and December?s rent directly into a court appointed registry, an impound account established by the court specifically for this purpose. This is typical in such cases, whereupon the final determination of the lawsuit, the impounded funds will either be transferred to Super Stop if they are victorious, or if Wasson wins, the funds will revert back to him along with, one must assume, substantial damages.
We have access to all of Wasson?s cancelled rent checks made payable to Super Stop and are in possession a copy of the Osceola Courthouse Registry receipt [#028590] in the amount of $10,000, which comprises the final two months of Wasson?s obligation.
All of the documentary evidence supports Wasson?s claim that he was not in default of any rent and if Shah really means what he has stated regarding Wasson ? ?Universal Heritage will be extremely happy to see Kissimmee Christian Academy come back to the facility and enjoy a good friendly relationship with them" - then Wasson should be able to return to the property immediately.
One small problem however.
Wasson?s old space has already been promised to a real estate academy, Business Today, apparently being run by one Aamir Khan, a local real estate broker.
Mr. Khan makes reference to the new school on his website and lists Wasson?s old address - 233 Academy Dr. Kissimmee, FL 34744 ? as the school?s location. A large sign has been placed just outside the property?s gate, also indicating the nature of the enterprise and its proprietor.
This is the entrance to 233 Academy Drive.
This is a close up of the sign.
One of our contacts emailed Mr. Khan regarding how long he had been at the Kissimmee location:
Is your school open yet and if so what kind of programs do you offer?
I drove by and it looks like a wonderful campus, how long have you been there?
Our contact received this reply on December 24:
Dear [name withheld]
How are you doing, I been open for little over two months now. Its going good. I am offering right now only sales associate class only.
From the email and other data that we have collected it seems that the Kissimmee property was never really available, and that regardless, it was certainly not available since probably mid-October, two months before Shah made his fraudulent claim. This is really not surprising at all because little of what Shah says even borders on the truth.
Not only was the space not available, but Mr. Khan seems to be only the public face for the real estate academy because Business One - a Limited Liability Corporation, which is owned by Super Stop?s principals, Denise and Mahammed A. Qureshi - also lists the real estate school's address - 233 Academy Dr. Kissimmee, FL 34744 - as its location in the State of Florida incorporation documents.
So we have a curious arrangement of facts here:
? Shah and UHF were given authority to act as Super Stop?s agents with regard to Wasson?s school.
? They used that authority to shut off the utilities and force Wasson out. The property upon which both UHF and Wasson?s school resided totals some 31 acres, certainly room enough to easily accommodate both enterprises.
? Mahammed A. Qureshi is Super Stop?s principal owner.
? Mahammed A. Qureshi also sits on the board of Shah?s UHF, we assume therefore that they are conversant in matters, such as this, affecting both.
? Shah?s claim that Wasson was arrears in rent at the time Wasson was constructively evicted [meaning that Wasson was illegally driven off the property] is an outright fabrication.
? Shah?s claim that Wasson is welcome back on the property is also a fabrication since the space has not only been committed for use by Mr. Khan?s real estate academy but the LLC controlling that business is owned by Qureshi himself.
This is lie upon lie, fabrication upon fabrication.
It is emblematic of the way that many of these so-called self-proclaimed Muslim moderates operate. In public venues they are the soul of accommodation - the Jews are their dear brothers, Jesus is a respected prophet and they share the same Abrahamic traditions. In private however the festering resentment seen on the streets of Falujah every day simmer and boil over with little provocation.
This is the face of disingenuous interfaith outreach, of phony Da?wa, it is merely a tool used by this nation?s enemies to lull the public into a state of acceptance, playing on America?s long tradition of religious tolerance and accommodation.
Unless the public shakes itself out of its reverie, one day it will wake up and behold that America more resembles a post Theo Van Gogh Holland than the pluralistic republic that it fancies itself currently.
And it is primarily our fault, although those who abuse our system to take advantage of us are certainly guilty also. It is our fault because far too many of us are so preoccupied with our own petty circumstances to really care if we are enabling the enemy.
If it means career advancement then we speak to and make nice with assemblies of suited thugs underwritten by Saudi Wahabist money and we ignore evidence such as what we have presenting here in the matter of Lee Wasson.
The factual documentation in this case was available to all the major media covering the case. It was rejected - "spiked" in journalistic jargon - by that same media - for example it never appeared in the articles written by Willoughby Mariano of the Orlando Sentinel [rendered even harder to fathom given the Sentinel?s original breaking of the controversy surrounding UHF?s first conference], nor did it air on local broadcast television news.
The reason is that newsrooms reject such prickly information because the theory of multiculturalism and non-judgmentalism - which they subscribe to - absolutely demands it. That is the higher authority to which they answer.
What we find particularly ironic in this case is having a supercilious fraud like Shah, actually quoting Matthew 7, 16-17 in Web forums, with a straight face ? ?Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bring forth evil fruit," on an Internet forum as if he were the second coming of Christ himself as he scurried about, trying to position himself to best effect.
To have the sacred abused by an Islamist fake should be beyond comprehension, but alas it is not - there is nothing the radicals will refrain from doing to advance their agenda ? even disingenuously quoting passages from a religion they clearly detest.
Super Stop, UHF and Zulfiqar Ali Shah had their chance to prove - once and for all - their bona fides as moderates. If Wasson had been welcomed on Super Stop's property and allowed to prosper it would have been the corner piece of a truthful and positive demonstration of interfaith good-will and legitimate Muslim-Christian brotherhood.
In reality, due to a seething hate of the West and its Judeo-Christian traditions, it was impossible for these people to constrain themselves. Blinded by hate, they were incapable of fully carrying out such a sham. Instead, they reverted to the feeble, transparent charade in which Shah now engages.
As we began this piece we made reference to how it was important to evaluate just how Islam?s apologists conducted themselves in their efforts to package Islam in the current super heated environment; that if they did so in a fair an honest manner that would be a net positive but if on the other hand these efforts were discovered to be less than honest that would seriously degrade their case.
What we have seen in the relatively short time observing this scene is unsettling.
We see the renegade Bridgeview Mosque in Chicago - which has institutional ties to those committing acts of terror [the Holy Land Foundation, The Islamic Association of Palestine and the Quranic Literacy Institute were an integral part of Bridgeview's culture and were recently found guilty of funding international terror and consequently subject to a $156 million dollar judgment] offered up by Catholic academics - with full administrative support - as appropriate representatives of inter-faith dialogue.
We see one of these same Catholic academics, filing statements in court, attempting to explain shockingly bigoted statements by Islamist Imams who have been found guilty of terror related charges and are on the verge of deportation.
In the present case we see a party touring the country preaching moderation in public but on a personal level - in private - doing everything he can to drive a small defenseless Christian school into near oblivion.
These are not anomalies, they are not isolated instances.
They establish a pattern of deception which casts these people as what they are, Islamists with no interest whatsoever in ever embracing the culture which uncritically welcomed them. They will continue to use whatever means possible to ultimately install Sharia law and turn America into a simpering mirror image of what is taking place now in old Europe.
How Multiculturalism Kills And Why You Should CAIR - Part I
By William A. Mayer, Editor & Publisher - PipeLineNews.org
Terrorism, inspired by radical religious fundamentalism has placed Islam in great peril.
If the religion is not to be deemed immoderate by its very nature, those who claim that it is non confrontational - "a religion of peace" - must demonstrate themselves to be both in the majority and in control. Those serving as Islam's apologists must prove themselves truthful in their statements and consistent in their actions.
Not surprisingly, throughout this society, especially after September 11, 2001, Islam has indeed made a concerted effort to combat the harm that Wahabi fundamentalism has brought it.
Seemingly having made their minds up, to that end many have engaged in an evangelical process called Da?wa, which amounts in practice to a phony sham of religious outreach to the greater community with the hope of convincing it that Islam has shed its eighth century mindset and adopted the Western ideal of religious toleration.
Sadly, on a certain level this outreach is succeeding; religious and secular groups, important individuals and institutions have been brought to believe these claims of reasonableness and therefore are rubbing shoulders with closet advocates of extremism in an uncritical manner.
Over the last 18 months we have devoted abundant time to examining this process. What we have found is unsettling; the deeper we probe the worse it gets.
Rather than an opening of genuine dialogue between Muslims intent upon proving their good faith to the West?s far older religious traditions as well as its secular society, we find groups and individuals masquerading as moderates, lying about their associations while at the same time continuing to saunter down a path littered with victims of jihad.
In the recent past we have shown how duplicitous, off track zealots like the Catholic Theological Union?s Dr. Scott Alexander, have used the tragic state of relations between the Judeo-Christian world and Islam as a cheap opportunity to advance his career.
We should hasten again to stress that, in our opinion, Alexander and the Passionist leadership of Donald Senior at CTU are currently operating in a state of open rebellion - of heterodoxy - as far as the Vatican is concerned, with regard to their extreme form of indiscriminate interfaith outreach.
As the Encyclical -"Dominus Iesus - On The Unicity And Savific Universality Of Jesus Christ And The Church" - issued in 2000 states:
"This truth of faith does not lessen the sincere respect which the Church has for the religions of the world, but at the same time, it rules out, in a radical way, that mentality of indifferentism characterized by a religious relativism which leads to the belief that ?one religion is as good as another.'"
The kindest thing one can say about Alexander is that he is a religious and moral relativist. He appears to be only marginally Catholic, having been quoted that he was "transfixed by Islam" and has carried on a "love affair" with the religion.
In a larger and perhaps more generally pertinent sense - Alexander's lack of probity aside - it must be realized that a policy of uncritical acceptance of what amounts to Trojan Horse entreaties serve only to give undeserved legitimacy to our enemies.
Alexander remains unchastened; he continues to pursue congress - breaking bread - with domestic Muslim organizations so evil that they have now been found to be direct accessories - and liable in civil court actions - for terrorist activities outside the United States.
For example, some of Alexander?s favorite Muslims reside at Chicago?s Bridgeview Mosque Association. This facility is central to the case of an American citizen, David Boim, who was murdered by Hamas in Israel in 1996. The Quranic Literacy Institute, the Islamic Association of Palestine and the Holy Land Foundation all operated in and around the periphery of Bridgeview. All three have now been convicted in this case - found guilty of raising funds for Hamas that resulted in Boim?s murder.
The Quiranic Literacy Institute?s spokesman, Rafiq Jaber also served as the spokesman for Bridgeview. Mohammed Saleh - a confessed Hamas fundraiser and Bridgeview member ? was also named in lawsuit and is subject to a portion of the judgment which totals an astounding $156 million dollars in damages. Additionally, Saleh is separately being prosecuted for filing false affidavits in the case.
Yaser Tabbara, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) ? a self selected middle of the road Muslim group - described the verdict as ?a travesty of justice."
In reality, the ?moderate" CAIR is actually an offshoot of the Islamic Association of Palestine - its roots are the same as the parent organization, it has just been cleaned up for purposes of public appearance.
In order to understand where counterfeit main stream Muslims are going with their Da?wa campaign you have to connect the dots linking the shadow world of Islamist organizations. These radicals have correctly assumed that most American?s are too preoccupied or lazy to do so, we do not however place Alexander in this group of assumed slackers, he is far too intelligent not to know the lay of this landscape.
According to the testimony made by Steve Emerson on February 24, 1998 to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Terrorism, Technology and Government Information, Nihad Awad, the founder of CAIR, was at the same time the contributing editor of the Islamic Association of Palestine?s Muslim World Monitor. Demonstrating their close association, at the time of its creation, CAIR often used the IAP?s website to announce communiqués.
The IAP and CAIR are welded together at the hip.
Alexander has an established pattern of supporting the worst elements in American Islam, recently he championed the cause of Fawaz Damra, the Imam of the largest Mosque in Ohio, located in Cleveland. Damra was convicted on June 16, 2004 in Federal Court on charges of unlawfully gaining U.S. citizenship in 1994 by lying about past associations with terrorist organizations. He faces possible deportation and a prison sentence of 5 years for his efforts at subterfuge.
Alexander submitted in writing, the following exculpatory ?expert" testimony on behalf of Damra with the court.
"The rhetoric is principally used by political and religious leaders to galvanize resistance to what Palestinian Arabs consider to be the patent persecution of their people by Jewish immigrants to the Middle East?when Palestinians refer to Jews as 'descended from apes and swine' or encourage support for those who 'kill Jews,' they do so with the reasonably justifiable self-image of victim and persecuted, not of victimizer and persecutor."
Refusal on the part of academics, to make value judgments in such cases leads to public perceptions in which dangerously radical belief structures are sanctified. This refusal to morally evaluate competing belief structures reflects the essential nature of multiculturalism.
The theory of multiculturalism itself has long been advanced in academia. Over the years it has been forced into the public schools as well as other secular and even religious institutions. Multiculturalists rejoice in the cultivation of an atomized polity, a melting pot in reverse. Such ideas turn America?s traditional ideal - ?e pluribus unum" - meaning, from many, one, inside out, to - ?e unum pluribus - from one, many.
That realization is significant, since it identifies multiculturalism as a political philosophy which is internationalist in nature and revolutionary in scope.
According to the National Association of Multicultural Education, the theory derives from:
??the constitutions of South Africa and the United States, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations?It challenges all forms of discrimination in schools and society through the promotion of democratic principles of social justice?Multicultural education is a process that permeates all aspects of school practices, policies and organization as a means to ensure the highest levels of academic achievement for all students. It helps students develop a positive self-concept by providing knowledge about the histories, cultures, and contributions of diverse groups. It prepares all students to work actively toward structural equality in organizations and institutions by providing the knowledge, dispositions, and skills for the redistribution of power and income among diverse groups. Thus, school curriculum must directly address issues of racism, sexism, classism, linguicism, ablism, ageism, heterosexism, religious intolerance, and xenophobia?In addition, teachers and students must critically analyze oppression and power relations in their communities, society and the world."
This is the core of multicultural thinking - a jargon laden collection of socialist cliche-speak. Its reliance upon, of all things, the South African Constitution and similar UN declarations and charters adds further focus to its overtly leftist, totalitarian nature. It's a philosophy that is in direct challenge to the shared beliefs, traditions and body of laws which has guided America for over 400 years.
A few selected passages from the South African, post apartheid, Constitution.
The South African Constitution writes inequality and unequal treatment into the law ? ?To promote the achievement of equality, legislative and other measures designed to protect or advance persons, or categories of persons, disadvantaged by unfair discrimination may be taken."
The South African Constitution does not allow for the American concept of freedom of expression - ?[it] does not extend to propaganda for war, incitement of imminent violence or advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion."
The South African Constitution does not recognize the American concept of private property ? ?Property may be expropriated only in terms of law of general application?[it may be expropriated]?for a public purpose or in the public interest?the public interest includes the nation's commitment to land reform, and to reforms to bring about equitable access to all South Africa's natural resources; and property is not limited to land?The state must take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to foster conditions which enable citizens to gain access to land on an equitable basis."
This is a document which absolutely guarantees and codifies inequality and racial bias. It destroys freedom of expression, freedom of the press and does away with private property. It is the charter of a police state, which is evident upon a brief review of how the South African government behaves on a daily basis.
At its core, multiculturalism is a lie. Its goals are indistinguishable from those of the left which organizes for the same vague sounding but historically divisive and ultimately totalitarian catch phrases of social, political, economic, and educational ?justice."
Equity in the above sense bluntly empowers governmentally mandated policies of top down redistribution.
The left, the educational gulags from which this theory has sprung, and the radical bands of racial separatists which hasten its acceptance - while at the same time comprising the intellectual core of the Democrat Party - are willing to use any means to maintain their hegemony over the educative process and the culture.
Let us consider the example of Rigoberta Menchu.
Over the last 25 years the story of this Guatemalan Indian native has been a cause celebre amongst multiculturalists.
Mechu offered a fable - a sweeping morality play - in which a poor but brave native Latin American voice bore witness to the damaging nature of American imperialism in that country.
In recognition of her story, she was awarded the Pulitzer Peace Prize in 1992; she was feted and lionized as a culture warrior striking a blow against Uncle Sam?s supposed predation on Indian people.
Unfortunately for Menchu and her supporters, she has been revealed to be a common liar and her book, I Rigoberta Menchu, An Indian Woman In Guatemala, has been proven fraudulent.
Her fabrication was demonstrated by anthropologist David Stohl - among others - who spent a great deal of time in the exact locations and villages that Menchu referred to and could find little if any corroboration between her statements and reality. Dr. Stohl?s research was reinforced by a similar study done by the New York Times - seldom mentioned as an agent of the vast right wing conspiracy - which came to the same conclusion.
What was Menchu?s motive?
She simply made the story up to foster support for the Communist insurrection in Guatemala.
Mere fraud, however, was not enough to dissuade the PBS program "Point of View" from preparing multicultural lesson plans prominently featuring Ms. Menchu?s forged reality, and to this day her book remains a multicultural icon. This is typical of media attitudes supporting this movement at all costs and one of its patron saints.
?[Multicultural education] fosters an animus against what are perceived as Western values, particularly the value placed on acquiring knowledge, on analytical thinking, and on academic achievement itself." - Losing Our Language - Sandra Stotsky, Harvard Graduate School of Education
Mandatory Western civilization courses have in large part been strangled out of existence by the left because they are the purview of brilliant - but deceased - white patriarchs; males who can no longer defend themselves. Towards that end, Menchu?s concocted anti-American paen against capitalism was such a force in this movement that it became the foundation for alternative university level courses that in the 80s started edging out the traditional coursework that was then a requirement for graduation; as such it is pivotal work.
That this book is based on an intentional lie, and that its purveyors are aware of that fact, remarkably, does nothing to reduce its value as a leftist secular religious icon.
"I think Rigoberta Menchu has been used by the right to negate the very important space that multiculturalism is providing in academia," says Marjorie Agosin, head of the Spanish department at Wellesley College. "Whether her book is true or not, I don't care. We should teach our students about the brutality of the Guatemalan military and the U.S. financing of it."
This mindset is eerily reminiscent of Dan Rather continuing to insist that his forged document story on George Bush?s National Guard duty remained relevant despite the fact that it was devoid of truth.
Multicultural education is learning devoid of worth; supposed uniqueness elevated over value. It goes far beyond the simple admonition to be respectful of others who come from differing cultures and ends up as a political tactic used to destroy tradition.
It is an exceedingly clever tactic, similar in manner to the way in which diminutive hyenas, successfully pursue large African plains game. Individually, such relatively small creatures are powerless to bring down large, tough and swift animals on their own, but assaults in packs - the animal kingdom?s equivalent of gang warfare ? as mirrored by the left?s own rainbow coalition hunting parties - multiplies the effect of individual ferocity into a lethal weapon capable of bringing down far bigger game.
Multiculturalism should be understood as nothing less than a search and destroy mission directed against the majority culture all the while disguised to appeal to the basic fairness and tolerance which resides in the American spirit.
Where is the evidence that a strong multicultural education is superior? Everywhere it has been tried it has only succeeded in less knowledgeable students and a lowering of academic achievement.
Where are the examples of nations based upon disunity, unclear purpose and Tower of Babel confusion having been successful?
The lessons of history preach distinctly the opposite.
Further complicating the picture, the educative process whereby multicultural diversity is imposed on impressionable young minds has become big business, foundations, educational pressure groups, college departments and media busy bodies who support it are bathed in the mother?s milk of such activism, money.
Nearly every school district in the United States has a determined, well financed group of Zulu shock troops pushing this failed, inherently bigoted theory.
The fact is that all of this is no secret to our most mortal enemies, those engaged in spreading radical Islam by the force of terror...
End of Part I
Student Petition Shows Netherlands' Muslims Simply Don't Get It
By Beila Rabinowitz, Director - Wahabi Watch
"Muslim Petition NL" is a group of Muslim students in Amsterdam. They write on their website that the purpose of the petition is to "let their voices be heard in the Dutch society."
While the text is directed at the "Friends of Theo van Gogh and the right wing political parties," the plan is to present the petitions to the politicians and the media with the hope of "improving the perception of Muslims in Holland." From the response so far, it's obvious that those behind the initiative have already garnered the support of the left and the small Christian parties.
As of now there are 2010 signers, nearly all Islamic names, and of a few non Muslims as well. Mostly students but managers, financial advisors,doctors, jurists, IT'ers, a labor union leader, a probation officer, an accountant, teachers, medical personeel, a mosque director and "multi cultural advisor Abdul Jabbar Van de Ven."
Mr. Van de Ven - a Dutch convert to Islam, teacher and "youth Imam" - went into hiding after he declared on Dutch national television that he was "filled with happiness when he heard about the murder of Theo van Gogh."
While the document might appear less than inflamatory, it clearly shows a lack of understanding of the responsibility that extremist Muslim thought had not only in the death of Theo Van Gogh but the radicalization of Holland's Islamic culture. Unless the Netherland's Muslims make a rudimentary committment to becoming Dutch, they will be seen as a confrontational religious minority bent imposing Sharia law on the majority.The petition follows, as translated by Beila Rabinowitz
Dearest Friends of Theo van Gogh, people from the LPF , the VVD and the group Wilders,
During the past years we have felt ourselves to be misunderstood and discriminated against by you. Since the murder of Theo van Gogh this feeling has become stronger. We want to clear up some misunderstandings once and for all.
We cannot all be judged the same way. Every person and every Muslim has their own personality and life-style. The murder of Theo van Gogh was committed by an individual, not by Islam. Our Islam condemns the murder of Theo van Gogh. Foreign Muslims are often asked if they find it objectionable that Theo van Gogh was murdered. Why should we feel any different then you ? It is obvious that we condemn the murder just as much as you do.
We have experienced some statements about Islam to be extremely upsetting. Criticism is allowed, but give it with respect and be precise and even-handed in your judgments. Where mutual respect ends, suspicion begins. Where insults begin, constructive dialogue ends. Freedom of expression is a moral right and a great good. A powerful tool. The clash of ideas stimulates progress in thinking and actions. But, as in the case of all power : It requires a hero to be able to use it properly. Heroes are the ones who suceed not to have this go at the cost of another norms and values.
The rights of equality and the right of freedom of religion must not be forgotten. All moral and legal rights must be respected, and the best is when they are balanced. It is -certainly for politicians- their business not to disturb this fragile balance. Unlimited freedom of expression is not a solution, and can turn out to be part of the problem.It can contribute to the radicalisation of people and the polarisation of the society. The murder of Van Gogh appears to have shown that,but the Dutch law recognises that the insulting of entire religions does not make for a happy society.
Fear and suspicion hold the happiness of the multicultural society hostage. Arson, violence, and insults are taking place everywhere. The discriminatory accusations against Muslims are causes as are several problems in the Muslim community in Holland. It is important to identify these problems. A great many Muslims do not speak Dutch, unemployment is relatively high, and the criminality in certain circles is high, education is lagging behind, and among some there is also suspicion towards the non Islamic or native Dutch in Holland.
The progress which we want to acheive, is not possible without respect, trust,and understanding for each other. We Dutch, Muslims and non Muslims, have to strive to fight against the present problems. We are struggling with multi cultural problems, and the solution will have to be just as multicultural. We will not give up our ideal of a multi cultural society. We must name the problems for what they are and work on them together.
We hope that you will take political responsibility to no longer hurt our feelings by generalising, and to better recognise our constitutional rights to equality and freedom of religion. In that you have the responsibility to serve as an example for the media and citizens. We expect that this will have a positive effect on the disturbed relationship between Muslims and non Muslims.
With Friendly Greetings - approximately 2,000 signatories.
Who Is Guarding The Guardians? - Islamist Speaks At Military Installation
By Beila Rabinowitz, Director Wahabi Watch
Islamist, Muqtedar Khan, recently spoke at the Rock Island Arsenal, lecturing on the moderate nature of Islam. A few months previous to that appearance, he attended - in an entirely different guise - a Wahabist conference in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Khan is also a colleague of Kamran Bokhari, spokesman for the Al Qaeda front group, Al Muhajiroun.
Muqtedar Khan likes to cultivate the image of a reasonable Muslim, yet his writings, statements, and associations reveal an opportunist who is playing both sides of the fence for professional gain and personal prestige.
Khan's alliances with people such as Kamran Bokhari, his publication of his work on I Views - the website edited by CAIR's ex-communications director, Ismail Randall Royer - who was jailed last year on terrorism charges ? as well as Khan's ties with militant Islamist groups are the hallmarks of a fifth columnist.
A brief review of his record suggests an extremely serious security lapse on the part of the military whose vetting process thoroughly failed them in this case.
We consider this a matter of gross negligence.
In October of 2004, Muqtedar Khan was invited to speak at the Army Field Support Command at the Rock Island Arsenal in Illinois. He was invited by Brigadier General Jerome Johnson. General Johnson is the Director of Plans, Operations and Readiness, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-4, United States Army.
From Khan?s personal weblog:
"I was there at the generous invitation of Brigadier General Jerome Johnson. General Johnson is an extraordinary leader, highly respected and admired by his staff and a man who keeps an open mind."
"I gave a lecture that had three parts ? Islam, the realities of the Muslim World, and US policies in the Muslim World. I enjoyed the question and answer session and was delighted to receive two coins - they are medals that Generals and Commanding officers present to people as a sign of esteem - from the general and then proceeded to see the arsenal on display."
It is alarming that a high ranking US Army officer would be fooled into thinking that Khan is a moderate. A simple internet search would have revealed Khan?s support for suicide bombings against American troops in Iraq as understandable acts of "frustration."
"The deaths of their own families, the destruction of their homes - all these are leading to frustation and anger and hopelessness and they want the enemy to feel the same frustration and hopelessness so they are resorting to this violence." - Muqtedar Khan, visiting fellow in foreign policy studies Brookings Institution and an expert in political Islam - ABC News
That such an individual was even given access to Rock Island - an active U.S. army facility which manufactures ordinance and equipment for the armed forces - let alone awards, is inexcusable. It?s an outrageous breach of national security.
After the security debacle which involved the now head of the Islamic Jihad in Syria, Ramadan Shallah - who had been invited to give lectures to Cent Com at McDill Air Base - albeit with the connivance of fifth column professor, Arthur Lowrie - one might hope that the Army would be more careful in vetting their Muslim speakers.
In April of 2004 Khan was at the Great Mosque in Mecca where he attended a conference at Imam Muhammed University on "Islam and Terrorism". The conference was sponsored by one of the biggest Saudi Wahabi groups and was actually called, "The Islamic Stand on Terrorism, Violence and Extremism."
According to the program of the conference the purpose of the conference was to have the Imam Muhammed Bin Saud Islamic University "clarify it's stance towards the deviated thought and would defuse the accusations against Islam..."
Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdulaziz financed the event and was in attendance.
According to a 2004 Washington Post article, the US based, Institute of Islamic and Arabic Sciences [the Saudis founded the Institute in 1989] was recently raided by the FBI. The IIAS has been linked to the Muhammed Ibn Saud Islamic University which is identified as "a main citadel of Wahabi instruction." Khan makes a point of recounting that he spoke critically about Wahabism - a rather coy statement, as if these intollerant people are in the habit of not only importing critics but paying for their accommodations and travel expenses.
Even a cursory search of Khan?s public record would have preserved the integrity of the Army's vetting process as it would have revealed Muqtedar Khan's friendship with Kamran Bokhari.
"...As a Muslim, I am concerned that through this "Get Ussamah Bin Ladin" campaign, the U.S. government is trying to distort and obscure reality. Those who oppose Western (in particular United States) hegemony and neo-colonialism are declared "terrorists." It is no secret that the intelligence apparatus of hegemonic nations like the United States and the United Kingdom, through their embassies, conduct operations under the cloak of diplomatic immunity?" - Kamran Bokhari
Bokhari made these remarks as head of Al Muhajiroun whose group displayed on their website a picture of the Capitol building engulfed in flames.
Muqtedar Khan and Bokhari often work together on academic endeavors aimed at advancing the Wahabi philosophy and frequently cross-quote each other in their written work - in October of 2004 they were photographed together in Washington, DC with a non-flaming Capitol building in the background.
Muqtedar Khan and Kamran Bokhari have succeeded in distorting and obscuring reality; seemingly parlaying their jihadism into a valuable job asset.
As Muqtedar Khan's blog attests, he displays the chameleon like ability which is the classic MO of an Islamist activist.
In our opinion the US Army must exercise some form of damage control immediately. In a post 9/11 world, one can only blink in disbelief, when Islamist professors like Muqtedar Khan - who openly express their disdain for the United States and its institutions - are being presented as moderates and invited by people like Brigadier General Jerome Johnson, to lecture to top military officials.
On his website Khan makes reference to Bush's, "Hall of Shame." It has pictures of "The Bigot: General Boykin," ?The Taliban John Ashcroft," and "The Tyrant: Donald Rumsfeld."
It ironically concludes with this statement:
"...It is a tragedy that President Bush who promised to bring dignity, integrity and morality to the White House continues to defend and support those who brought shame and bad name to American itself. Remember the old saying: A man is known by the company he keeps..."
We could hardly disagree with Mr. Khan's last sentiment, one is indeed judged by the company one keeps.
Our view is that the US military's invitation to Muqtedar Khan, and their awarding him two medals as ?a token of esteem," only compounds the enormity of this serious breach of national security.
It must be addressed.
Ms. Rabinowitz maintains a website, Militant Islam Monitor which is an important clearinghouse of Islamist research.
©2004-2005 Beila Rabinowitz, all rights reserved
Murder For The Sake Of Allah ? Blasphemy vs. Jihad
By Beila Rabinowitz
Miami, FL - PipeLineNews - Holland has halted the debate to repeal its little used but still powerful blasphemy statutes because, according to Socialist Party Minister Jan Martijnessen:
" In the aftermath of the killing of Theo van Gogh and the incidents of arson, a lot many people are having a problem understanding how the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and freedom of religion are related to each other.' The statute in question can be repealed. But to talk about that now will give the impression that everything is allowed in the realm of public debate." - Militant Islam Monitor
In other words, freedom of speech and worship must be limited to protect the delicate sensibilities of Muslim immigrants unwilling to fit in.
The blasphemy laws in Holland play into the hands of the militant Islamists who are trying to silence critics of the religion with threats of lawsuits, intimidation and now, acts of murder. The killing of Theo van Gogh, by a Dutch born Muslim ? Mohammed Bouyeri - who claims to have taken umbrage at his criticism of Islam, came two years after the murder of prime ministerial candidate Pim Fortuyn.
In 2001 Fortuyn was elected as leader of the party "Leefbaar Nederlands" - ?Livable Holland." He brashly declared, ?Make no mistake ? I will be the next prime minister of this country."
In 2002 Fortuyn voiced his fears about the Islamization of Holland and was dismissed as party leader. He proceeded to start his own party - Pim Fortuyn?s List - which garnered 26 seats in an election, enough to have made him prime minister.
Fortuyn?s success stemmed from his ability to articulate the very real fear of Muslim perpetrated crime and violence. The rise in Islamist radicalism and criminality has added punctuation to the abysmal failures of the Dutch government's decade long attempt to promote integration and dialogue with the growing radical presence.
Dutch trepidation of becoming strangers in their own country were also voiced by Theo van Gogh, who wrote ten days before his death, "How long will it be before the Dutch are no longer welcome in Amsterdam?"
The irony of these words played themselves as he was shot and nearly decapitated by Bouyeri as he was traveling to screen footage of his film about the murder of Pim Fortuyn.
Fortuyn had predicted that his critic?s demonization of him would lead to his murder. Even the so-called Dutch political establishment compared him to Hitler and World War II era Dutch Nazi leader Anton Mussert . Opponents threw feces and urine laced pies at him, called members of his party Nazis and labeled him with the Third Reich epithet reserved for Jews, ?subhuman."
Fortuyn?s killer, Volkert van der Graaf, was an adherent of the environmentalist Green Party. The party?s leader, Paul Rosenmoller?s personal attacks on Fortuyn were so fierce that it nearly reduced him to tears during a debate.
Rosenmoller called his opponent, ?the incarnation of all evil," and warned that ?if Pim Fortuyn gets into power we will be in a state of war."
This view was supported by Dutch politicians of nearly every political stripe.
Bookshops refused to carry his book, "The Rubble of the Eight Purple Years," a critique of the social and political failures of the ?Purple Cabinet" which took office in 1994. They compared it to Adolph Hitler?s ?Mien Kampf."
Attitudes have evolved dramatically. On March 18, 2002 deputy prime minister Gerrit Zalm said:
?You can?t solve every problem with a simple formula, and anyone who says that is fooling the people". As far as that goes, I find Fortuyn a dangerous man."
Two months later Fortuyn was murdered.
Zalm was vilified in 2004, however, for stating the obvious after van Gogh?s murder:
"Holland was in a state of war."
The court ordered psychological evaluation of van der Graaf revealed that, "The motive to kill the victim were precipitated by the belief that he posed a great danger to society."
An article in De Telegraaf entitled "Deadly Words" revealed that at the murder trial it was stated that van der Graaf's knowledge of Fortuyn's political positions was derived solely from third party quotes, and that he was personally not conversant with Fortuyn's writings. The chief prosecutor concluded that van der Graaf had not on only punctured "the head, neck and chest of Fortuyn", but that he had "punctured a hole in democracy."
Van der Graaf told the court that he saw himself ?as a savior of humanity."
Fortuyn was ambushed at close range ? five shots fired with a precision which caused police to describe him as ?a cold blooded skilled marksman."
Van der Graaf further claimed the murder was to stop Fortuyn from reintroducing the mink trade to Holland, later stating that he had done it ?to protect Muslims."
In a bizarre twist, Dutch papers reported this week that a man brandishing a gun had threatened Pim Fortuyn?s former chauffeur at his home.
Prophetically, just before his murder, Fortuyn stated:
?If something does happen to me I am happy that you gave me this opportunity to speak. If something does happen, they [the politicians] are partly responsible and cannot wash their hands of it claiming ?It wasn?t me who perpetrated the attack.? You have helped to create the climate in which such a thing could happen."
The killers of both men were emboldened by this climate.
Not surprisingly, left-wing liberal politicians staunchly defended the Muslim community. They fended off any attempt to discuss the danger of increasing Muslim violence comparing such suggestions with Nazism and even the persecution of Jews in Holland during World War II.
These so-called champions of free speech remain at the forefront of denouncing Israel's attempts at self-defense, referring to Arab terrorists as ?freedom fighters against the occupation."
Van Gogh deliberately made outrageous remarks to expose the left?s hypocrisy heaping abuse on their demonization of Israel and their mercenary use of the Holocaust to promote their pro-Muslim stance in Holland.
Even after his death, critics - such as Dutch writer and failed filmmaker Leon de Winter, in a WSJ opinion piece - falsely labeled him an anti-Semite, when he was in fact, a precious ally who tried to prevent the use of the Holocaust as an excuse to prevent examination of the ill-effects of the ongoing Islamization of Holland.
In March of 2004 an Islamist website - Imam.nl - started a petition which soon spread to other Muslim sites. The petition stated that, ?the patience is ended?Theo Van Gogh Must stop his columns."
It urged the signatories to ?take action?we cannot allow this man to continue to spread hate and aggression against Islam and go unpunished."
The initiators of the petition planned to present it to the General Intelligence and Security Services, Minister Remkes of Internal Affairs, and to the Dutch Lower House of Parliament, claiming van Gogh was a threat to them.
Their demand was simple, they wanted him prevented from writing.
It has not been adequately explained why the General Security Services, not only failed to perceive the gravity of the threat, requiring the Spanish police to tell them that Van Gogh?s killer, Mohamed Bouyeri, had posted Jihad messages on the Moroccan Dutch website which prominently featured the anti-Van Gogh petition
In an insidious twist, a top secret dossier documenting the surveillance of Bouyeri and the so called Hofstad group to which he belonged was found in the killer?s home, and that of two other suspects who were involved in a siege with police in The Hague.
The file had been leaked by a Moroccan Muslim translator who worked for the Internal Security Service who was identified only as Othman Ben A.
Subsequent newspaper reports wrote about a government investigation and concluded that the dossier might have enabled Van Gogh?s killer to successfully move about undetected in the weeks before the murder.
Unbelievably, Mohamed Bouyeri had been in police custody for an unrelated violent incident and had his cell phone tapped by the security services until he stopped using it two weeks before the murder. Several members of the Hofstad group had been trailed and some questioned and released by police months before the Van Gogh killing.
When asked about the petition, van Gogh said:
"This shows that I am even more right about this then anything which I have ever written?The writing ban is a gift from Allah for me. I still have a lot of developmental aid work to do."
The petition-cum-fatwa was based on a litany of complaints against Van Gogh which I have translated:
"This man has been busy for years writing columns in which he rails against Islam and the Muslims and publicly humiliates them. His columns are published once in a while in the free paper from Metro. That is how he writes lies and stories about the Muslims which cannot be tolerated.
Muslims are in general tolerant and patient, but we cannot let this man continually spread hate and aggression against Muslims to go unpunished. Until now we Muslims have never publicly reacted thanks to our patience. But the patience has run OUT! We are fed up with this!
In the paper of Saturday (25/04/04) he called the Prophet Mohammed- Peace be Upon Him - a "dirty old man" and a "rapist." As Muslims we protest strongly against such remarks which can cause a lot of damage in our community. People cannot expect us to be silent about this. This is going too far! We are angry and it is our right to get angry! Sign the petition below in protest. As soon as we have enough signatures ,we will bring this to the Lower House , the AIVD and the Minister of Internal Affairs."
Ironically, the column in question was entitled "May I say this?" In it, van Gogh took issue with the fact that the General Intelligence and Security Services, the AIVD, was protecting the rights of his opponents who wanted to silence him. He was especially critical of Boris Dittrich, a liberal politician who sided with Islamists. Van Gogh labeled him a ?collaborator."
"Because partly due to people like me this fifth column of goat-fuckers is going issue a desperate cry for "respect", and assault your and my children with poison gas, diseases, and atomic bombs. That's logical, isn't it ?
Theo van Gogh words were not only prophetic, the same people who vilified him in life are now doing it in death when he cannot defend himself.
The debate in Holland about the borders dividing blasphemy and free speech is obscuring the real issue, which is the obvious link between terrorism and militant Islam. As Theo van Gogh rightly observed, it is better to let the preachers of hate say what they think so one knows who one?s enemies are.
The time is too late for subtlety, the Dutch must stop talking and start acting. They must start closing the Mosques and Islamic Centers where fund raising and incitement to Jihad takes place.
The al-Tawheed Mosque in Amsterdam, which nurtured the seeds of van Gogh?s murder, should be the first of many.
The AIVD-General Intelligence and Security Services, must arrest and deport those who are recruiting for Jihad and close down Islamist websites like Imam.nl which started the persecution of Van Gogh, and Maghreb nl, which was used by Mohammed Bouyeri to boast of his terrorist intent.
In a display of logic all too familiar to observers of appeasement, a recent cabinet discussion about closing the Al Tawheed Mosque and prosecuting its leadership ended with the conclusion that it was impossible to take any form of legal action, since neither the Mosque nor its board of directors had been formally accused of any crime.
The website Imam.nl, which launched the petition of silence van Gogh carries this prophetic remark, "patience triumphs over everything best."
In his book "A Thousand Years for Revenge" Peter Lance prefaced his work with the Latin satirist Juvenal's words - ?Quis custodiet ipso custodes? - who is guarding the guardians themselves? - and titled his book for the Baluchistani proverb "If it takes me a ten thousand years to kill my enemy I will wait a thousand years for revenge."
In the case of Theo van Gogh's killer, Dutch security missed the clues which, after the fact, still exist on the Islamist websites, mocking their feeble efforts.
That must no longer be allowed to happen.
The question the Dutch - and by extension all of Western society which is under siege by the Islamists - have to answer, was posed by van Gogh ten days before his death, "How long will it be before the Dutch are no longer welcome in Amsterdam?"
How long indeed?
What The Terrorist Murder Of Theo Van Gogh Means
By Beila Rabinowitz
On what was to be the last morning of his life, Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh left his home near Amsterdam and proceeded by bicycle to his office situated near a large park in the Eastern part of the city. He was in the process of completing a film about the Dutch politician Pim Fortuijn who was murdered for warning about the Islamization of Holland.
Van Gogh was riding what the Dutch refer to as an ?old mans bicycle," with a straw basket from which a supermarket bag was sticking out .According to a young woman who was riding behind him, a man on a bicycle came next to Theo and opened fire. Theo Van Gogh shouted ?don?t do it, don?t do it" and fell from his bicycle, but must have gotten up, since witnesses say he managed to stagger to the other side of the road There, a scene which was described as ?savagery," played itself out on a morning which the Dutch now refer to as their 9/11 and the beginning of ?Jihad in Holland."
According to witnesses, the gravely wounded Theo Van Gogh begged for mercy on his knees. The shooter, who was described as ?a dark skinned man" wearing a knitted cap and a jabailaya, reloaded and shot him again. He then pulled out a knife which he held with both hands and proceeded to stab Van Gogh in a frenzy - ?as if he was trying to cut a tire to shreds" - according to witnesses. It later became apparent that the killer had slashed Van Gogh?s throat in an attempt to behead him.
Soon after the murder it was revealed that the killer was connected to the group of Islamists in Holland who were under surveillance by the police and linked to Ayman Al Zawahir and Al Zarqawi , and a Jihad network which was linked to attacks in Madrid and Casablanca. Investigators said that the letter found on Van Gogh?s body indicated ties to Al Takfir Wal Hijra, a radical group which has declared war on Westerners.
Witnesses recounted that after stabbing and slashing Van Gogh, the killer then calmly pulled a second knife out of his bag, wrote a short note and then plunged the note and knife into Van Gogh?s chest near his heart. He then kicked Van Gogh several times hard in the side, wiped his gun on a rag, and walked away - ?As if it was the most normal thing in the world."
The note was later found contain verses from the Koran and a call for holy war.
By the time the many bystanders who passively witnessed the murder approached, Theo Van Gogh , the 47 year old grand nephew of the famous painter?s brother, lay dead on an Amsterdam street a few blocks from his home.
Van Gogh had received death threats as a result of making a film about wife beating in Islam called ?Submission" and was supposed to be under police protection, but he had shrugged it off saying:
?The bullet will not come for me. People think- ?that is the village idiot, why would anyone shoot him??"
Less then 10 days before his murder Theo Van Gogh had written one of many articles criticizing Mayor Cohen of Amsterdam for his appeasement policies towards militant Islamists. He ended it with the prophetic words :
?The Amsterdam police have no interest in coming to the defense of the native Dutch who are being attacked by an increasingly aggressive minority. And [mayor] Cohen couldn't care less. Suspect that our mayor is an incorrigible cynic and a mercenary opportunist to boot, and ask myself for how long native Dutch will be welcome in Amsterdam."
Theo Van Gogh was highly critical of Cohen?s intentions to ?keep things together" and maintain the status quo despite the increasing aggression of the Muslim minority in Holland towards the native Dutch population. Indeed the Dutch, like other Europeans - whose recent history reveals an abysmal track record of appeasement , surrender, and collaboration - appear to have no effective strategy to deal with the militant Islamic threat which is now undermining the foundation of their open society.
Dutch Deputy Prime Minister Zalm, who said that Holland was in a ?war with Muslim extremists" was denounced by politicians of all parties
The chairman of the VVD party, Jozias Van Aartsen, who was also mentioned in the killers letter said:
?For many in Holland a new phase has begun. I hope the cabinet understands that dialogue and speeches no longer suffice, and that action is needed. We are dealing with a radical group that is convinced that we are the enemy, that we have to be destroyed. You just have to read the letter from B. (the killer) it is dripping with this .It is exactly the same theme as the attackers in Madrid - "You love life - we love death." In Holland we have to realize, recognize, and acknowledge that this is the case. If you are an enemy- then you have an enemy."
Tragically, it appears that while the majority of Dutch may nod in agreement with his assessment, they have neither the social and legal apparatus, nor the collective political and public will to declare war on the militant Islamists.
In a recent article which appeared in one of the leading Dutch liberal newspapers - The Volkskrant - sociologists weighed in on how to deal with a situation which is threatening their survival. The article, entitled ?We have let it rot too long,? stated that, ?These events show what kind of climate we have allowed to develop.
Of great concern is the fact that the killer, who has only been identified as ?Mohammed B," was just one of potentially thousands of Muslims in Holland who seem poised to turn on their adopted countrymen. In an article entitled ?Jihad Fighters educated right under our noses,? states that :
??Mohammed B is not alone. The Jihad fighters have been among us for a long time .They have been recruited and educated under our very eyes."
?It is not yet clear if Mohammed B. himself made the decision to murder Van Gogh or if he was directed to do so by a terrorist group. But the message that he left behind on the body of Theo Van Gogh - a declaration of war on America, Europe, Holland, unbelievers, and the ex-Muslim critic of Islam Hirshi Ali ? shows the actions to be inextricably linked to the international Jihad. The way in which the letter was formulated also attested to the fact that he had a very thorough religious ideological schooling, very likely in Holland?."
?These events show what kind of climate we have allowed to develop. With the people we have let in and by allowing them to do whatever they want" says sociologist Herman Vuisje. He continued, ?At most not more then 5% of Muslims are radicals. That makes around 50,000. But it just takes one to grab a pistol and a knife to plunge Holland into a deep crisis, as we saw yesterday?I don?t think the murder of Van Gogh is the turning point, it is the burning embers of a historic mistake."
Rene Cuperus of the Wiardi Beckman Foundation believes that Holland has become "a frontline state" in the clash of cultures. "In France and Belgium you don?t have the cabaret type of character who is shouting about goat-fuckers. They have to know that they have come into the freest land in the world. The land of abortion and homosexuality. This new conflict cannot be solved with political correctness."
One can expect that the call for stronger state controls is going to gather momentum, says Piet de Rooij a professor of Dutch history. He ended his newly published book "Republic of Rivals " with the sentence "We are working on new divisions," meaning the divisions between the foreign and native born Dutch .
"My prediction was right. This is a symbol of a process which threatens to go totally wrong. The police and government officials realize this too. If the government can no longer guarantee the safety of its citizen, then we are lost. More pressure on Muslim organizations is being planned. Minister Verdonk yesterday, began that process. But this can not be solved with hefty debate or firm speech. It requires an enormous commitment."
De Rooij, questions whether there is another option aside from "keeping things together".
"We don't have any other option, and that is just as well," says Norbert Both. The big dilemma in a confrontation with intolerance is that tolerance doesn?t provide an answer. Then they will just grab for the entire hand. But if you respond to intolerance with intolerance you lose yourself. And of course we don't want to do that. The question is whether we will resist the emotions and keep being ourselves."
The militant Islamist terrorist who killed Theo Van Gogh ended the ?live and let live" attitude which used to characterize Holland, enabling artists like Theo Van Gogh to thrive there .
The sobering reality is that the notion of ?live and let live? and ?keeping it together" aren?t capable of dealing with militant Islam and to pursue those ideals is tantamount to societal suicide.
Sociologist Norbert Both?s desire to remain ourselves is the luxury of an emotion which cannot be permitted in wartime along with prior concepts of tolerance and dialogue
In a post 9/11 world ?being ourselves" has become synonymous with self defense.
Theo Van Gogh was murdered, in large part, because misguided Amsterdam city officials such as Mayor Job Cohen, and liberal Dutch politicians, thought they could ?keep things together ? by appeasing Muslims and militant Islamists. Van Gogh was killed for ?being himself" in an open society which did not heed his warning that :
?Since September 11, as you well know , the knives have been sharpened and the fifth columnist goat-fuckers have been marching relatively unhindered forwards. I can't put it otherwise .We live in a nightmare of good intentions and wrongly understood idealism. I am too old to emigrate to America, that beacon of hope in a steadily darkening world."
Like the murdered Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn, Theo Van Gogh was a lone voice who eschewed political correctness to warn against the Islamization of Holland, which he called the advent of a ?Dark Ages of Mecca."
A week after the murder, it appears that the Dutch politicians have already capitulated to the Militant Islamists. After the Deputy Prime Minister - Gerrit van de Zalm stated that ?We are at war with Muslim extremism," Dutch politicians fell over themselves condemning his ?choice of words" and rushed to mollify the Islamists in the vain hope of preventing additional attacks.
Dutch Prime Minister Balkende stated:
?The Netherlands is a nation where people ought to want to meet one another, where cultures meet each other," Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende said on Dutch television Monday.
Even more alarming was the statement of the former Dutch Prime Minister Dries van Agt , from the Christian Democratic Party. He appeared on Dutch television and stated ?I deeply regret that the government has appropriated Bush's terminology regarding the war on terror."
If the Dutch fail to take action to purge the militant Islamists from their midst it will mean that Moroccan Muslim Amsterdam councilman Aboutaleb?s proclamation that ?we will be living together tomorrow, over tomorrow and five and ten years from now," is a sign that the Dark Ages of Mecca which Theo warned his countrymen against, has already arrived.
How Radical Islam Has Changed Amsterdam
June 23, 2004 - by Theo Van Gogh, as translated by Wahabi Watch Director, Beila Rabinowitz
Editor's Note: We are republishing this piece with a very heavy heart. Mr. Theo Mr. Van Gogh was assassinated, November 2, 2004 by a radical Islamist in Amsterdam.
This is what the election and the war on terror was about, those were the stakes. The Radical Islamists mean us harm. There can be no negotiation, no quarter given.
Thank you for giving this consideration as you voted.
After the question was put to me to say something on this stage about how Amsterdam has changed, I immediately thought of myself. As a result of my dissapointing experience with the weaker sex, I went looking for a belief in which the woman knows her place.
Because Allah knows best so do I.
In my belief there is room for a corrective slap. In my belief a woman must walk behind the man.In my belief a woman cannot demand alimony. In my belief an unfaithful wife is stoned to death. It is a miracle to see how happy are women become, they know their place and fear the hand of their husband and are afraid o f their master. Compare their happiness to that of the whores here, the Western women who complain and argue, don't want to give in, has a big mouth, and babbles about equal rights.
There are more advantages associated with my beliefs.
But the biggest advantage is that the Mayor of Amsterdam is a useful idiot who continually seeks a 'dialouge' with us.
As you know there is just one truth,that of Allah.
As you know there is but one belief . That of ours.
Apostates, heretics, homosexuals, and Jews, they will all be vanquished under the Thousand Year Reich of Allah which is steadily approaching.
Mayor Cohen -peace be upon him -thinks that we will leave you alone, but you know better of course and so do I !
Women will have to keep their mouths shut and the punishment for all the other vermin will be terrible.
But Cohen thinks that we are reasonable people who want to live in peace.
You and I we know better.
I don't want to live together.
With Allah's help I want to serve my brothers and sisters in Saudi Arabia. I want to collect money for Al Qaeda in the Al Tarweed Mosque, and perpetrate attacks so I can get to paradise !
Mayor Cohen -peace be upon him- took the trouble after September 11th, you recall that time when we taught the Satan America a lesson, to come to our mosque .
He used the word ?respect', that innocuous term that we also use to give you the impression that we are a minority which is being discriminated against.
We demand respect which means that we are going to make you submit to our will.
Cohen- peace be upon him- is a sucker for dialogue , in his own words ," to hold things together ."
Blessed are the innocent in spirit .
Cohen won't get very far once we are in charge .
Amsterdam is changing so fast and so much attests to this
.Allah knows best and has big plans for this city. I want to voice my gratitude that my eyes were opened and I embraced the true belief, the only one.
Oh yes, and there is still Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who according to my brother Aboe Jah Jah,needs to be put away and to shut her mouth. Mrs. Hirsi Ali as a so called ?representative of the people", needs to be guarded day and night,at the cost of the tax payer.That's a lot of money which could be put to better use, for example, for Islamic schools.
We will deal with the Hirsi Ali problem soon enough, despite the bodyguards.
Because Allah knows best. It's only a question of time when there will be nice funeral, just like with that other heathen, Pim Fortuijn.
What's nice about your democracy is that all the problems solve themselves.
Above all continue with the ?dialouge' which Cohen is advocating.
A dialogue which consists of licking my boots and that of my brothers without us having to do anything in return.
We spit on you and you think it is a rain shower .
Allah is the scourge which will conquer Amsterdam, don't think that it won't happen.
I who have seen the light, know better.
It is a godly sojourn under the heel of Allah.
Sleep well, good Amsterdammers .
Signed - Theo Van Gogh