“Minarets are our bayonets” was one line in the famous poem Recep Tayyip Erdoğan recited at a public rally several years earlier, earning the future prime minister a minor prison term. I was never able to fully understand the merit of the metaphor; why, after all, should a symbolic structure of a holy building be likened to a weapon? But sending someone to jail just because he had recited a poem was more ridiculous than the bizarre verse, probably long forgotten.

The Swiss vote and its aftermath have reminded us once again that the “minarets are our bayonets.” The wisdom of the Swiss people’s choice to ban minarets can always be debated, possibly with more of us disagreeing with the Swiss. All the same, just as Erdoğan’s sentence was more ridiculous than the poem itself, the Turkish reaction to the Swiss referendum has been more ridiculous than the ban itself. Shame, disgrace, Swiss racism, victory of Islamophobia, illiberal decision... You name it. We are heading fast to say “One minute!” to the Swiss. Soon some genius Islamist may argue that the Swiss vote should be blamed on the Kemalist imitation of French rationalism, or on the Turkish military – which, by the way, has a ban on buying Swiss-made weaponry. Oh, but that should be the cover for the conspiracy!

It’s funny how the Turkish Foreign Ministry expects a “corrective action,” or how the “Turkish democrats” queue up to condemn what was essentially a foreign nation’s democratic choice, right or wrong. It was even funnier how Islamist Turks gave long lectures on Switzerland’s ailing democracy. Here, the rule is simple: We love democracy only as long as it serves political Islam. Ironically, on the exact same day Turkish government big-wigs condemned Swiss democracy, their boss, Erdoğan, publicly said that “the less columnists wrote, the more peaceful Turkey would be.” They may be right to dislike Swiss democracy. With Swiss democratic rules and values, half the cabinet might have to go to jail.

Turkey is 10 times bigger than Switzerland in population and nearly 10 times poorer in per-capita income. All the same, Turkish lawmakers earn 10 times more than the country’s average income, while Swiss lawmakers earn just on the average. Swiss lawmakers cannot possibly spend most of their office hours meeting hordes of people from their contingency cantons asking for jobs, government contracts or other personal favors. Just try to imagine a delegation of merchants from Argovia, or farmers from St. Gallen, showing up at the offices of their fellow deputies to ask for government loans or jobs for relatives. In the land of the Crescent and Star, lawmakers enjoy the finer things in life – secretaries, armies of advisers, free telephone calls, travels to exotic territories, lifelong health care and much more, in addition to a de jure shield that protects them from prosecution if they offend. In the land of lakes, mountains, chocolate, fine watches and numbered bank accounts, lawmakers cost each taxpayer less than 10 francs a year – and no de jure shield to protect them from prosecution.

The hypocrisy is always there when political Islam is speaking. In a country where synagogues and churches have been bombed and priests killed, where locals have slit the throats of Christian missionaries and 50 to 75 percent of people refuse to have Christian, Jewish and atheist neighbors, we surely cannot be talking about putting to vote whether we should have church bells ringing. But it looks grossly absurd to talk about democracy and tolerance when observant Muslims can not even tolerate less observant Muslims.

We can always safely guess the results of a Turkish referendum on whether to ban churches and synagogues, or Jewry and atheism, as a whole. Again, the unspoken rule is simple: Interfaith tolerance is a one-way street.

It wasn’t a surprise to hear Turkey’s chief negotiator with the EU, Egemen Bağış, calling on “our Muslim brothers to withdraw their money at Swiss banks,” and adding the vulgar opportunistic note that “Turkish banks would always welcome their money.” That call for boycott was merely a seal that we are going through a clash of civilizations, not an alliance of them. The message is clear: If you offend Muslims, even through democratic means, we will make you pay for it. That’s hardly the dynamics of an alliance. So, Minister Bağış, you want economic sanctions against a country because its people made an “undemocratic choice through democratic means?” Think about Iran and Sudan, both of which are on your government’s “most-preferred nations” list for trade. But in the dictionary of political Islam, Iran and Sudan can always be perceived as more democratic than Switzerland. Hurriyet-Turkey's English Daily

For your weekend entertaiment pleasure. Enjoy!!

When the Duke of Milan is brutally murdered, Giovanni Auditore an Assassin - is dispatched to investigate the crime. His mission: determine who is responsible and why. The answers he uncovers implicate Italys most powerful families reaching all the way back to the Vatican itself. As Giovanni draws closer to the truth, he becomes hunted himself. He must expose the conspirators before he joins their ever growing list of victims This is the Prequel to the Assassins Creed 2 Story.

1476, Florence. Giovanni Auditore, an assassin, attempts to thwart a conspiracy against one of Lorenzo de Medicis allies, whom he works for. The ensuing inquiry will take him to Milan where he tries to prevent the worst from happening.



Pursuing Sforzas assassins, Giovanni arrives in Venice where he intercepts a coded letter from the members of the conspiracy. Decoding this document in order to get to the top of the conspiracy becomes of imperial importance.

Unable to decode the letter, Giovanni decides to deliver it to Rome in order to unmask the ringleaders. But there he discovers that the conspiracy is much more widespread and dangerous than he thought.

Are you worried — like so many Americans after the Fort Hood massacre — about the growing threat of Islamist subversion and terror here at home? Worried, beyond that, about what we’re doing — or not doing — militarily in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq? Worried about the growing reach and power of Islamist movements in Europe and South America, as well as Asia, the Middle East, and Turkey? Worried about the military alliances Islamist governments are forging with their secular mirror images: socialist-god governments in places like North Korea, Russia, and Venezuela?

Then focus like a laser on Iran, now, because Islamists will score major victories in all those places and more if we fail to prevent the ruling mullahs from openly, triumphantly making Iran the world’s first Islamist nuclear power. The danger isn’t only Iran’s own catastrophic recklessness, once she gets the bomb, or the fact that all her Arab neighbors will respond by scrambling to go nuclear too. It’s also that Islamists everywhere — joined by growing masses of previously undecided Muslims — will see Iran’s success in achieving nuclear status the way Iran’s mullahs see it: as a historic defeat for the West, blasting open the gate to a 21st-century world where Islam rules and Christians, Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists are subservient or worse. Islamist ranks will swell, everywhere, as confidence grows that the Islamist side is the winning side, and victory is near.

THE WAR WE MUST WIN
Most Americans can scarcely imagine an Islamist-ruled world. Most Muslims can, and they respond in one of three ways. Moderate Muslims wholeheartedly reject the Islamist vision and the support for jihad that is inseparable from it; Muslim extremists embrace it, many with growing fervor; and a third group sits on the fence, waiting and watching. Constant politically correct reassurances that only a minority of the world’s Muslims support violence against us are based on the fantasy that only “Islamist extremists” do that; “moderate Islamists” don’t. In fact, there is no such thing as a “moderate Islamist.” All Islamists are extremists. It’s an extreme creed. Moderate Muslims do exist, millions of them, many bravely fighting against the rising Islamist tide, but they aren’t “moderate Islamists.” Moderate Muslims are anti-Islamist Muslims, who oppose the imposition of Sharia and all the oppressive baggage that comes with it. They are on our side — freedom’s side — and we should be on theirs. Instead, we mostly ignore them and fail to heed their warnings, reaching out to “moderate Islamists” instead, welcoming them into our critical institutions — as our military, aided by the FBI, welcomed Major Hasan.

When it comes to Islamists abroad, poll data make it clear that they are the overwhelming majority in the Middle East. Iran and Turkey were the two great Middle Eastern exceptions, as Islamism swamped competing ideologies in all the Arab lands. Iran may still be, if popular majorities in that once great nation were allowed free choice, but they are governed by an Islamist regime more despotic than any Persian shah, ancient or modern. Turkey, once the freest, most proudly westernized and progressive country of them all, is on the verge of the same sorry fate. If you doubt that, look again at the new Turkey, governed by an Islamist party since 2002, a Turkey that is right now preparing to embrace Iran.

Focus like a laser on Iran now, because we have only months — not years — to prevent Iran from blasting through that history-making gate. Don’t waste precious time on the pretense that negotiations and/or sanctions can save us. As John Bolton, Michael Ledeen, Rich Lowry, Andrew McCarthy, and a few other brave souls keep pointing out, we have been negotiating with Islamist Iran for 30 years now, offering the mullahs one sweet deal after another, and getting blow after blow in return. Even if — mirabile dictu — Iran signed an agreement promising to forgo nuclear weapons forever, it would be worth no more than the 1938 Munich agreement. Iran’s mullahs are fanatics, like Hitler, not rational criminals we can make a deal with, as we did with the Soviets. MAD — mutual assured destruction — worked, because the Russians weren’t mad.

As for sanctions, if there ever was a chance they could have worked, even in their most robust form — a complete blockade of Iran’s ports by America and the few allies who might have joined us — that chance is long gone. Years ago, such a blockade might, arguably, have brought Iran’s Islamists to their knees by denying them the refined gasoline they need to keep the machinery of repression rolling, giving Iranians who hate the mullahs a chance of overthrowing them. Today, regimes like Russia’s and Venezuela’s would supply that gas and more, over land, and we would be forced either to retreat in defeat, or to do what we should have done soon after we invaded Iraq — as soon as it became clear that Iran was behind most of the IEDs that were dismembering our troops in Iraq.

CONTINUED 1 2 3 4 Next Source: National Review

Because the Obama administration is keen to restart negotiations between Israeli and Palestinian leaders, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has offered a ten-month freeze on West Bank settlements. Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas has responded by demanding more — as a pre-condition, before he will talk. Just a guess: Netanyahu is not surprised. Nor should anyone else be. It doesn’t require Donald Trump to know that the art of the deal starts with an understanding of what each side wants. Yet for more than half a century, Western politicians and diplomats have built upon a mirage: the belief that because we see peace as a benefit, everyone in the Middle East must see it that way, too.

This assumption is mostly obviously false in regard to Hamas, which has ruled Gaza with an iron fist since Israel withdrew from that territory in 2005. Hamas’s leaders have been candid: They are fighting a jihad, a religious war. Their goal is the annihilation of Israel, an “infidel” nation occupying land Allah has endowed to the Muslims. A “two-state solution” or any other compromise is out of the question. Under sufficient pressure, Hamas will accept a temporary truce as a way to gain time to rebuild its strength. But putting sufficient pressure on Hamas is problematic, as illustrated by the U.N.’s recent Goldstone Report, which accused Israel of war crimes for having responded to several years of non-stop rocket attacks with a military offensive — one that was cautious and limited by any objective standard.

Of course, serious people do not envision Israeli-Hamas negotiations. It is rather talks between Israel and Abbas — who maintains tentative control of the West Bank — which President Obama would like to get underway again. But any agreement Abbas might strike with Israel, no matter how advantageous for average Palestinians, would be denounced by Hamas as not just a bad deal but an act of treachery and apostasy. Abbas’s life would be in danger. If you were advising Abbas, what would you tell him? Probably, to do exactly what he is doing: Pocket any Israeli concessions the Americans can wring out of the Israelis while dismissing them as woefully insufficient; refuse to negotiate; but behind the scenes work with the Israelis on security — not least your own — and economic development. If nothing else, that may prevent Hamas from gaining additional ground.

As for Israel’s neighbors, they are undemocratic regimes, so, for them, allies are nice, but enemies are essential. Where else can popular dissatisfaction be deflected? Take Saudi Arabia: Israel long ago proved itself to be the Saudis’ best enemy — both reliable and valuable. The Saudis know they face no actual threat from Israel, but hatred of Israel is something Wahhabi clerics — whose theological support the House of Saud requires — can sink their teeth into during Friday night sermons. Why would a Saudi prince trade that for an invitation to dine in Jerusalem? Of course, one can make peace with Israel and not break bread with the Jews. Egypt is proof of that. After reaching a settlement with Israel in 1979 and receiving the entire Sinai Peninsula — a territory three times as large as all of Israel — in exchange, Egyptian president Anwar Sadat was assassinated by Islamists in 1981. His successor, Hosni Mubarak, has understood that Egypt’s diplomatic relations with Israel must never be normal, neighborly relations. Blatant anti-Semitism is rife in Egypt. (View, for example, this clip from MEMRI TV.)

There’s also this: Tension in the Middle East keeps the price of oil higher than it would be were a durable peace ever to break out. So any country that depends on oil sales — Russia, for example — benefits as long as the conflict stays at least on low simmer. Higher oil prices on the one hand, peace for Jews and Arabs on the other: You think it takes Vladimir Putin long to make up his mind? As for Iran’s Islamist rulers, the vehemence of their jihad against Israel buys them legitimacy and even a chance for leadership within the Sunni world. Is there a better way for a Shia regime to achieve that? Like Hamas and Hezbollah, two terrorists groups they finance (the first Sunni, the second Shia), Iran’s rulers have not the slightest interest in such Western diplomatic constructs as a “final-status plan for a two-state solution.”

The U.S. and Israel, of course, do adamantly desire peace. Chronic conflict — the normal state of most of the world throughout most of history — is uncomfortable for free and democratic nations to endure. But with so many key actors opposed to peace, there is no way for Israel, even with energetic American help, to reach a lasting settlement with its Muslim neighbors any time soon. That doesn’t mean the situation can’t improve. Abbas’s Palestinian Authority does appear to be cooperating closely with the Israeli Defense Forces to crack down on both terrorists and criminals. And an improved security situation is among the factors contributing to a remarkable new economic vitality on the West Bank.

Netanyahu calls this the pursuit of “economic peace.” Could it pay off over time by persuading more Palestinians — and more powerful Palestinians — to embrace peace as their goal and effectively challenge peace’s opponents? Yes to the first; doubtful but not impossible to the second. But why not achieve now what can be achieved now? Surely, cultivating a small oasis is preferable to pursuing a great mirage. National Review

— Clifford D. May, a former New York Times foreign correspondent, is the president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on terrorism.

How is it that only Western nations are accused of “defaming” religion?

America, like so many countries in the West, laments its strained relations with the Islamic world. In June, Pres. Barack Obama traveled to Cairo to speak against the “fear and mistrust” that exist between the West and Islam. Yet Muslim governments demand respect for Islam while refusing to offer similar respect for religious minorities within their own borders.

The recent Swiss vote to ban the construction of minarets in that European nation has become the latest controversy to generate Muslim protests worldwide. However, Islamic governments are in no position to complain about Western intolerance and “Islamophobia.” Most Muslim nations are repressive or offer only limited political freedom. More often than not, Islamic states violate basic human rights; and almost all persecute Christians, Jews, and other religious minorities.

Many authoritarian states — especially Communist or formerly Communist ones — violate religious liberty along with other freedoms in order to maintain political control. But Muslim nations are almost unique in their willingness to persecute religious minorities to promote religious ends, as is evident from the State Department’s latest report on religious liberty abroad.

The State Department refers to “state hostility toward minority or non-approved religious groups,” as if different faiths randomly oppressed different faiths. However, Islam has distinguished itself with the willingness of governments and individuals to harass, attack, jail, and kill members of other religions. Even the most moderate and tolerant Islamic states often fall far short of respecting religious minorities. In Morocco, for instance, the government detained converts from Islam to Christianity, expelled Christian missionaries, and restricted “non-Islamic materials and proselytizing.” Many other Islamic states are far worse, however.

AFGHANISTAN
The U.S. expelled the Taliban government, but has not created a free society. Although the Karzai government responded to outside pressure and took some steps to improve religious liberty, explains State, “the residual effects of years of jihad against the former Soviet Union, Taliban rule, civil strife, popular suspicion regarding outside influence of foreigners, and still weak democratic institutions hindered the realization of this aspiration.” Relations among different Muslim sects “continued to be difficult”; non-Muslims face “harassment and occasional violence”; “most local Christians did not publicly state their beliefs or gather openly to worship.”

BRUNEI
In this small Islamic state respect for religious liberty has been falling. The State Department reports that “non-Muslims were prohibited from receiving religious education in private religious schools, which had previously been allowed.” Moreover, “across denominational lines, non-Muslim religious leaders stated that they were subjected to undue influence and duress, and some were threatened with fines and/or imprisonment. Active monitoring of churches and disruption of supply shipments and mail were reported.” The authorities also limited the use of literature and worship places by religious minorities.

EGYPT
Although progress was made in some areas, “The status of respect for religious freedom by the government declined somewhat,” reports State, “based on the failure to investigate and prosecute perpetrators of increased incidents of sectarian violence,” mostly against Coptic Christians. Moreover, the authorities “again failed to redress laws and governmental practices that discriminate against Christians, effectively allowing their discriminatory effects and their modeling effect on society to become further entrenched.” Christian converts from Islam were harassed and abused.

INDONESIA
The most populous Islamic nation, Indonesia long has reflected a more moderate variant of Islam. But Muslim extremists remain active and often unconstrained by the authorities. Reports State: “Ongoing government restrictions, particularly among unrecognized religions and sects of the recognized religions considered ‘deviant’ were significant exceptions to respect for religious freedom.” Worse, the government sometimes “tolerated discrimination against and the abuse of religious groups by private actors and failed to punish perpetrators.” Those responsible are rarely punished. Moreover, “Some groups used violence and intimidation to forcibly shut at least nine churches and 12 Ahmadiyya mosques.”

IRAN
One of the uglier Islamic persecutors is Iran. The constitution nominally affirms the rights of “protected” religions — Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians. However, in practice no non-Shi’a believer is safe. Explains the report: “Respect for religious freedom in the country continued to deteriorate. Government rhetoric and actions created a threatening atmosphere for nearly all non-Shi’a religious groups, most notably for Baha’is, as well as Sufi Muslims, evangelical Christians, and members of the Jewish community. Reports of government imprisonment, harassment, intimidation, and discrimination based on religious beliefs continued.” The state also promoted discrimination in the areas of education, employment, and housing. Iran is a Country of Particular Concern.

IRAQ
Tragically, liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussein meant liberating some of the worst sectarian passions, which he had brutally held in check. Roughly half of Iraq’s historical Christian community has been displaced, many to Jordan and Syria, another secular Arab dictatorship. Although the government does not persecute, reports State, “violence conducted by terrorists, extremists, and criminal gangs restricted the free exercise of religion and posed a significant threat to the country’s vulnerable religious minorities.” Although overall violence is down, Christians and other religious minorities continue to be targeted by radical Muslims.

MALAYSIA
This former British colony remains freer than Iran but not as free as Indonesia. Observes State: “Minority religious groups remained generally free to practice their beliefs; however, over the past several years, many have expressed concern that the civil court system has gradually ceded jurisdictional control to Sharia courts, particularly in areas of family law involving disputes between Muslims and non-Muslims.” Conversion from Islam is prohibited and, notes the department, “Religious minorities continued to face limitations on religious expression and alleged violations of property rights,” including prohibiting proselytizing of Muslims.

NIGERIA
The population is divided among Christian, Muslim, and traditional faiths. Although the national government does not persecute, a dozen “northern states use Sharia courts to adjudicate criminal and civil matters for Muslims,” notes State, and “local political actors stoked sectarian violence with impunity.” Although Christians are not free from all blame, the initiators more often have been Muslims and their victims more often have been Christians; there also have been reports of forced conversions to Islam as well as threats to extend Sharia law over non-Muslims.

PAKISTAN
Washington’s ally in the war on terror is one of the least hospitable states for religious minorities. State notes “some positive steps to improve the treatment of religious minorities,” but Christians, Hindus, and Jews remain second-class citizens, if that. Explains the report: “Law enforcement personnel abused religious minorities in custody. Security forces and other government agencies did not adequately prevent or address societal abuses against minorities. Discriminatory legislation and the government’s failure to take action against societal forces hostile to those who practice a different religious belief fostered religious intolerance, acts of violence, and intimidation against religious minorities.” Christians even risk execution if convicted of “blasphemy.”

SAUDI ARABIA
Another close U.S. ally, Saudi Arabia is among the globe’s worst persecutors. At least Saudi Arabia makes no pretense. Explains the report, “Freedom of religion is neither recognized nor protected under the law and is severely restricted in practice.” Although the private practice of non-Sunni Islam is usually left alone, “This right was not always respected in practice and is not defined in law.” Moreover, explains State, “the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice (CPVPV) continued to conduct raids on private non-Muslim religious gatherings.” The repressive kingdom has been designated a Country of Particular Concern.

SOMALIA
No surprise, this wreckage of a nation with an Islamic majority is not a good host for religious minorities. Notes State: “The Transitional Federal Government (TFG) generally did not enforce legal protections of religious freedom.” Not that it probably could do so even if so inclined, given the rise in extremist militias, which “often imposed through violence a strict interpretation of Islam on communities under their control. There were also reports that individuals who do not practice Islam experienced discrimination, violence, and detention because of religious beliefs.”

SUDAN
This tragic nation, whose Muslim north long has warred against its animist and Christian south, also is inhospitable land for religious minorities. After years of violent conflict, an accord of sorts was reached, theoretically ensuring religious freedom in the south while favoring Islam in the north. State explains that, while the Government of National Unity “did not vigorously enforce its strictest restrictions on religious freedom, it generally did not respect religious plurality in the north.” There also “were some reports of societal abuses and discrimination based on religious affiliation, belief, or practice.” Sudan is another Country of Particular Concern.

TURKEY
Although the government generally respects freedom of religious practice, it restricts Islamic expression in education and official circumstances. Moreover, notes State, “Minority religious groups also faced difficulties in worshipping, registering with the Government, and training their followers,” as well as proselytizing. Further, “Threats against non-Muslims created an atmosphere of pressure and diminished freedom for some non-Muslim communities. Many Christians, Baha’is, and heterodox Muslims faced societal suspicion and mistrust, and some elements of society continued to express anti-Semitic sentiments.”

YEMEN
Yet another failed or semi-failed Islamic state, Yemen enshrines Islam as the state religion, holds Shari’a as the source of all law, bans conversion from Islam, and forbids proselytizing of Muslims. Although non-Muslims remain nominally free to otherwise practice their faiths, reports State, “There was a decrease in the status of respect for religious freedom by the government . . . , particularly with regard to the Baha’i and Jewish communities.” Private perpetrators of violence against religious minorities were not punished.

Washington’s ability to aid religious minorities in other nations always will be limited. However, any Western dialogue with Islam must take into account the tendency of Islamic governments to persecute. For a start, the U.S. should suggest that Muslim governments that campaign against the “defamation” of religion start by respecting the freedom of conscience of those who live under their control. After all, murder is the ultimate form of defamation. National Review

— Doug Bandow is senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a senior fellow in religious persecution at the Institute on Religion and Public Policy. A former special assistant to Pres. Ronald Reagan, he is the author of Beyond Good Intentions: A Biblical View of Politics.

A new 39 minute Lord of the Rings episode telling of Aragorn's hunt for Gollum before The Fellowship of the Ring. This high concept short film is brought to the screen for free by Independent Online Cinema. www.thehuntforgollum.com Made by talented volunteer filmmakers for under $5,000, the film is a faithful tribute to the style of Peter Jackson's trilogy and the world of J.R.R. Tolkien telling how Aragorn tracked down Gollum between The Hobbit & The Fellowship of the Ring.



The film achieved over 1 million views in the first week of release in May 2009. (Dailymotion) and wide press acclaim for it's high production values on a microbudget.

Kuala Lumpur confiscated, believe it or not, 10,000 Bibles. In March, another 5,100 Bibles, imported from Indonesia, were impounded, the Associated Press reports. “[The Bibles] contained the word Allah to refer to God,” BBC reported. “The government, which is dominated by Muslim Malays, claims that the word Allah is Islamic. And its use in Bibles could upset Muslims.”“Church officials say that the word Allah originated in Arabic,” BBC pointed out. “Malays have used it for centuries to refer generally to God. And Arabic-speaking Christians used it before Islam was founded.” They are banning bibles meant for Christians in "moderate and modern" Malaysia.

No one blinks when a boiler-plate dictatorship, like North Korea, bans books. But a 21st century Asean member like Malaysia? Penalties for swapping the Lord’s name can be three years in the slammer. Or a fine of up to $5,200. Or both. Clamping a patent on the Divinity’s name can lead to farce. Kuala Lumpur earlier banned the Bup Kudus. This is the Bible used by Ibans, largest of Sarawak’s 27 indigenous groups. It calls God “Allah Taala”—provoking suppression. There’s no comparable term in Iban, Christians protested. KL grudgingly scrapped the ban—but only for Ibans.

So where is the broad named, Navi Pillay the United Nations human rights chief,a subservient Dhimmi, doing the biddings of her masters, she criticised a Swiss vote banning minarets, when Malaysia too needs a criticism and maybe a kick up the butt or two. She, is controlled by 57 'Oh I See' countries, where she is blind to atrocities inflicted on minorities in the said 57 countries. Hypocrisy!

Why did the Swiss actually vote to ban the minarets? The surprising vote reveals rather a growing unease in Switzerland, which traditionally has been one of the most open and most tolerant countries of the continent: Many Swiss are worried about the rise of political Islam and religious rules in Europe that are threatening hard-won rights such as equal rights for women and men, the secular rule of law above religion or the right of each individual to decide for him -- or herself. This was fueled by a number of incidents over the last years:

The former Imam of a mosque in Geneva, Hani Ramadan, a Swiss citizen by the way, publicly justified the stoning of adulterers or the punitive amputation of the hand of a thief. Muslim parents prevented their daughters from attending swimming classes, gymnastics or summer camps in public schools because they didn't want their girls to be together with boys. Media reports about forced marriages, female genital mutilations and "honor killings" of Muslim women - all confirmed by authorities or in court -- came as a shocking surprise. A university professor even went as far as to suggest in an official publication of a federal commission to introduce elements of the Sharia, the Muslim legal system, into Switzerland. Not forgetting the PM of "moderate secular" Turkey who actually instigated the whole issue by saying, “Mosques are our barracks, domes our helmets, minarets our bayonets.”

Then there is this Paki broad (a hypocrite named Asma Jahangir, UN special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief and chairperson Human Rights Commission of Pakistan) who says, "Swiss minaret ban 'extreme Islamophobia". She further adds ‘I therefore urge the Swiss authorities to abide by all its international obligations and to take the necessary measures to fully protect the right to freedom of religion or belief of members of the Muslim community’. That is rich coming from a Paki, when they kill, maim and oppress their minorities with impunity.

Let us look at another "paragon" of human rights, Iran condemns Swiss minaret ban as "Islamophobic act". Is that not hypocrisy, Iran’s late Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini had explained that non-Muslims rank between “feces” and “the sweat of a camel that has consumed impure food.” Thus Iran’s Zoroastrians, Jews, Mandeans, Christians, and Bahais are subordinated and indeed treated as a fifth column by the revolutionary Islamic Republic. No matter that most of these religious groups were established in Iran before Islam arrived there. They actually conduct religious cleansing enthusiastically, of course the UN and the other Muslim countries turn a blind eye to that.

Another hypocritic nation, Egypt, the gall of Egypt’s Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa who lashed out at Switzerland voters’ decision to ban minaret construction in the European country on Monday is exactly blatant hypocrisy.Christians in the Arab country have voiced their concern of what they are calling the “hypocrisy” of Egyptian society.They question whether Egypt, which has been forceful in its refusal to allow the construction of churches in recent years, is in a position to criticize the Swiss move. “This proposal…is not considered just an attack on freedom of beliefs, but also an attempt to insult the feelings of the Muslim community in and outside Switzerland,” Gomaa added.

But, for Christians in Egypt, they are demanding honesty as critics asunder argument upon argument against the Swiss move, which was not supported by business circles, the government or religious leaders. “I was shocked to hear of what happened in Switzerland, but to be honest, I find it even more strange that Muslim leaders are saying what they are saying when almost the exact same thing happens in Egypt,” said Maged Idris, a local pharmacist in Cairo. “They should not be so quick to judge that’s all.”

Coptic lawyer Naguib Gobrail, a firebrand leader, has voiced his concern over Gomaa and others’ statements over the Swiss vote. He said that Egyptians should see the realities of their own country before criticizing the European nation. He argued that until Egypt makes it nearly impossible for new churches to be built, “so why should they have any right to say the things they are saying.”

He added that their statements are an “insult to Christians” living in Egypt who have been forced to face “injustice upon injustice over their basic rights.” He continued to say that no matter what leaders in the country say, Christians know the truth.“We have lived under constant threat for a long time and have been unable to even build our places to worship because the government won’t give us the proper permission. Now, Switzerland does something very racist and stupid, but Muslims in this country must understand that they do the same thing to us,” Gobrail argued.

Here are more details on how Copts are treated in Egypt.

Turkey? Aaaah Turkey, The Wall Street Journal story on the Swiss minaret vote had a great quote in it, from a Jamal-on-the-street interview in Turkey (the source of most Muslims in Switzerland):Cavid Aksin, an Istanbul metalworker, was angered that the referendum coincided with the end of one of the most important religious feasts in the Muslim calendar. "I think Turkey should have a referendum on whether to close down its churches," he said.You mean churches like Hagia Sophia? Or the Armenian Church of the Holy Cross? Or the Halki Seminary? After 1,400 years of closing down churches, the gall is unbelievable. National Review

I will not even talk about Saudi Arabia's treatment of Non Muslims comparing it with Switzerland, it will be damned insulting to Switzerland.

Saved the best for last, our neighbour, the Indon Government: Swiss Ban on New Minarets Unacceptable : The government on Tuesday expressed its disapproval of any action curbing rights of religious observance, specifically the Swiss referendum this week banning the construction of minarets.

Okay, you Indons, how about the following:

Indonesian Theology Students Withstand Threats, Illness JAKARTA, Indonesia, December 1 (CDN) — Some 1,000 seminary students are resisting efforts to evict them from the former municipal building of West Jakarta where they have taken refuge after Muslim protestors drove them from their campus last year. On Oct. 27 officials began ....Published in 2009

Seminary Students in Indonesia Evicted from Two Locations
JAKARTA, Indonesia, October 30 (CDN) — In the past week hundreds of students from Arastamar Evangelical Theological Seminary (SETIA) were evicted from two sites where they had taken refuge after Muslim protestors drove them from their campus last year. With about 700 students ....Published in 2009

Islamists Bully Villagers into Revoking Church Permit
JAKARTA, Indonesia, October 26 (CDN) — The regent of Purwakarta regency, West Java has revoked his decision to permit construction of a Catholic worship building in Cinanka village after Islamists threatened residents into withdrawing their approval of the project. Dedi Mulyadi on Oct. ....Published in 2009

This post would be very long, if I posted all of the Indon's intolerance, so just go to the site.

Here is another view in blunt language, no beating around the bush : Democracy versus the Muslim Bayonet

While the world waxes indignant over the Swiss minaret ban, it is useful to put things into perspective. In Egypt, Christians are persecuted. In Pakistan, construction of new churches is severely restricted. In Saudi Arabia, it isn't allowed at all.

Karachi: November 30, 2009. (PCP) Dr. Nazir S Bhatti, President of Pakistan Christian Congress PCC expressed surprise on statement of Pakistani (Paki hypocrite named Asma Jahangir, UN special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief and chairperson Human Rights Commission of Pakistan) representatives in UNHRC expressing concern on Swiss vote ban on construction of minarets on mosques and other Islamic institutions in Switzerland when construction of new Churches in Pakistan has to follow strict government guidelines which prohibits one furlong from existing mosque and use of loudspeakers.

Nazir Bhatti said " Christ The King processions and other open rituals have been banned in public places from decades but not any Muslim human right activists have raised voice against government actions to damage true spirit of religious freedom in Pakistan but their protests in name of human right against Swiss government vote to ban minarets is index of substandard"

In a statement released by PCC Central office here today also urged Saudi Arabia to allow construction of Churches in kingdom to challenge Swiss ban on minarets.

"The Human Right activists around world shall raise voice to press upon Saudi Arabia and other Islamic countries in Middle East to permit construction of Cathedrals and ensure religious freedom for Christian minorities" added Nazir S Bhatti. Pakistan Christian Post

Switzerland has voted overwhelmingly to ban triumphalist minarets on Muslim mosques. On a respectable turnout of 55 per cent, there was a landslide victory for banning minarets: nearly 58 per cent for a ban, just 42 per cent against. It appears that only the three most westerly French-speaking cantons voted against the ban, while the other 23 cantons voted in favour.

This went completely contrary to pre-referendum opinion polls which had shown a 10 per cent lead for the pro-minaret camp; instead, the margin was 16 per cent in favour of a ban. People lied to opinion pollsters. Are they doing the same in Britain? Are they saying they will back Dave when they have rather more robust intentions in mind? Could the Vichy Tories be in for a shock? They certainly will be in 2015.

The usual suspects are proclaiming that Switzerland will now have “pariah status”. On the contrary, there is significantly more respect for Switzerland around the world after the referendum than there was before. The news that the electorate in one European country has had the resolution to defy its political class and refuse to roll over and indulge a politically correct minority will be an inspiration to other electorates.

There is a backlash on the way: at present it is showing itself in small ways, over minor matters such as minarets, but presently it will manifest itself on more substantial issues such as immigration and bogus climate change. It is no coincidence that the people most loudly bemoaning the ban on minarets in Switzerland are those who most vociferously applauded the prohibition on crucifixes in Italian classrooms. The consistent principle is an attack on European Christian civilisation, complemented by subservience to all the enemies of that civilisation, secular or Islamic.

The Swiss voters have not forbidden the practice of the Muslim religion: they have simply insisted that it should not indulge in triumphalism by towering over Christian churches. If they had really wanted to play hardball they would have insisted that the first mosque in Switzerland could only be built the day after the first Christian cathedral opened for worship in Riyadh. British and European Christians have been doormats for secularists and politically correct “faith groups” for too long. It seems the days of abject masochist subjection are over. By Gerald Warner in the Telegraph

The Wall Street Journal story on the Swiss minaret vote had a great quote in it, from a Jamal-on-the-street interview in Turkey (the source of most Muslims in Switzerland):

Cavid Aksin, an Istanbul metalworker, was angered that the referendum coincided with the end of one of the most important religious feasts in the Muslim calendar. "I think Turkey should have a referendum on whether to close down its churches," he said.

You mean churches like Hagia Sophia? Or the Armenian Church of the Holy Cross? Or the Halki Seminary? After 1,400 years of closing down churches, the gall is unbelievable. National Review

"The minaret isn't just the symbol of a religion but of a totally different culture. Large parts of the Islamic world don't share our basic European values: the legacy of the Enlightenment, the equality of man and woman, the separation of church and state, a justice system independent of the Bible or the Koran and the refusal to impose one's own beliefs on others with 'fire and the sword.' Another factor is likely to have influenced the Swiss vote: Nowhere is life made harder for Christians than in Islamic countries. Those who are intolerant themselves cannot expect unlimited tolerance from others." Spiegel

The Swiss have just taken the significant step of banning the building of minarets. Right across the continent of Europe this ban is sure to have important repercussions.

Some will say that here is evidence of racism and xenophobia, while others will hold that the Swiss are people who believe in their historic identity, and Muslims who wish to live in Switzerland will have to respect it.

The ban follows quite a bit of contention which started when the king of Saudi Arabia bought a house on the shore of Lake Geneva. Launching a building program without first obtaining the requisite permits, he was obliged to stop and pull down extensions. Geneva already had a mosque, and when the Saudis wanted to build another one, the city fathers replied that permission would be granted only when the Saudis reciprocated by allowing the building of a church in Saudi Arabia. Also following the brief arrest of his charmless son, Colonel Gaddhafi, the Libyan dictator, uttered such threats that the authorities quickly and abjectly apologized.

In a population of some seven million there are 400,000 Muslims worshipping in about 150 mosques, half a dozen of them with minarets. In the small town of Wangen, in 2005, the imam of a largely Turkish community applied to add a minaret to his mosque. He was allowed to do so, but the Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyib Erdogan, a crypto-Islamist, had been unwise enough to issue a blanket defiance to Western countries: “Mosques are our barracks, domes our helmets, minarets our bayonets.” A politician by the name of Christoph Blocher picked up the challenge and made a national issue of it. A lawyer by training, he is a successful industrialist, the founder of the Swiss People's Party which has a right-wing platform, and he has been a government minister.

In Switzerland, the people are sovereign, and express their sovereignty through referendums. Blocher and the Swiss People's Party have been campaigning for a couple of years for a referendum on the minaret issue. Posters depicted women in burkas surrounded by sharp bayonet-shaped minarets. In the minds of Swiss women, minarets herald sharia law and discrimination, and their votes appear to have been decisive. This is all the more remarkable because the institutions of government, the civil rights lobby, churchmen of every stripe, and finally the press, have been almost unanimously in favour of minarets, condemning any idea of banning them, and also putting about a fearful whisper that Islamists are bound to resort to reprisals and terror, as in the case of the cartoons in Denmark.

No country in Europe quite knows what to do about the Muslims who have come to live there. What exactly should be conceded to them, and why? These puzzling questions go to the core of national identity. Defying those who claim the right to set the terms of public debate, the Swiss have tried to draw a line. Whether the opinion-making elite of the entire continent will allow them to keep to it is quite another matter. National Review

This is the story of Captian Mukhtiar who was cheated of his pension by whom? Guess, really guess, the friggin Army. Unbelieveable, ain't it. Well it is true. At first everyone thought he was going to get his pension. The Army, whose mentality never ceases to amaze me, just would not budge, when this poor warrior had a combined total of 28 years of service, both Police and Military! Not one of the big shot Officers in the Army wanted to address this issue, they sent lowly indecisive Captains and Majors to attend to this problem. Mighty pen pushers they are, compared to a warrior. They are that, as there are no more Commies around. This case is not like where a 3 star, bigotted, racist General gets awarded an SP, whilst being protected by Special Forces and snipers, being transported in armoured cars, to a location in Sauk, being given close protection, against a poorly trained rag tag group of rebels. Of course the proverbial knowing someone in power is of a great help. It is akin to a Major charging an enemy position carrying a general purpose machine gun! Which of course, is bloody ridiculous, cheapening the SP and insulting the memories of the fallen and real living warriors.

Poor Mukhtiar, a lowly Non-Malay was given a run around. They are callous, selfish and uncaring. Here is a compilation of Lt Col Idris's efforts in helping Captain Mukhtiar Singh a warrior who slew the enemies of this nation, placing his life on the line. Unappreciated by Mindef, Lt Col Idris Hj Hassan, went all out to help Mukhtiar, without caring for his own physical pain, a very bad back, which until to this very moment he suffers from. I salute this magnificient man, Idris, for his sincere efforts in helping a Malaysian Warrior, who is without connections but loyal friends.

On a mountain top in Malaya last week, John Davis waited for an old wartime friend. Davis had slipped into Malaya by submarine during the Japanese occupation, fought as a guerrilla against the Japanese with the man he was now waiting for: Chin Peng, Chinese-educated leader of Malaya's Communists. After World War II had come a parting of the ways: after marching in the victory parade in London, Chin Peng had gone back to the jungle to continue his guerrilla war, this time against the British and the Malayans; Davis had become a senior district officer in the government of Malaya. As Davis watched the jungle, two scouts walked across the border from Thailand; then came Chin Peng. No longer the slight, pimply youth of the World War II underground, Chin was now a pudgy, soft-faced 34. Laughing, he shook hands with Davis. Said Davis, in Chinese: "Long time no see."

It had, in fact, been something over eight years since non-Communist eyes had rested on Chin Peng. In that time, Chin and his force of 6,000 Communist terrorists had bobbed up all over Malaya, killed some 3,000 unarmed citizens and 2,000 police and soldiers. Running after Chin and repairing his disruptive work had cost the British (who still control Malaya's security and defense forces) a fabulous $1.4 billion. They had put a price of $82,500 on Chin's head, reduced it to $9,900 as the strength of his forces was halved and Chin's value declined. Though far from licked, the terrorists, driven into the remotest jungles, had been forced to set up their headquarters across the border in Thailand.

Recognition. To bring the war to an end, Prince Abdul Rahman (the Tengku), Chief Minister of Malaya's newly elected government, offered to surrendering terrorists an amnesty guaranteeing safe conduct, fair treatment, a pardon, or safe passage to Red China if desired. But he did not promise legal recognition to the Malayan Liberation Army, Chin's name for his Communist outfit. Chin made propaganda out of what he called the "peace negotiations," just as the British had warned the Tengku he would. When at last Chin rejected the amnesty offer, the Tengku was still hopeful, if only he could explain the amnesty terms personally to Chin Peng. Said he: "I am going to listen with an open heart to all Chin Peng has to say." Out of the jungle came a letter from Chin demanding that anti-terrorist activity be suspended over 400 square miles of northern jungle in order to give him safe conduct.

Once Davis and Chin had met, the Englishman led the way down the mountain to the village where Chief Minister Rahman, the colony of Singapore's Chief Minister David Marshall and Sir Cheng-lock Tan, president of the Malayan Chinese Association, were waiting. But first Chin asked to wash up, demanded five sets of fresh underwear, instructed the three servants who had come out of the jungle with him to cook a Chinese meal. Then he went in with his two lieutenants to listen to a four-hour speech by Chief Minister Rahman on the futility of continuing the war. When the Tengku had finished, Chin blandly demanded recognition of the Communist Party. The next day Chief Minister Rahman repeated his lecture and, getting nowhere, was soon shouting angrily: "If the Communists were in power ... I would not indulge in an armed struggle against the government because I love the people and seek their welfare." Chin countered that as long as the British controlled the security forces, the Tengku was not independent. Said the Tengku: "We cannot give the Communist Party equal status and let the events in China, Korea and Viet Nam recur here. Malaya is too small a country to be divided into warring factions."

Over and over the Tengku repeated the only terms on which the Communists would be allowed to return to the commu nity: they must surrender, disband armed forces, and abolish the Communist Party. After surrender they would each be subjected to a loyalty investigation and would be restricted to a specific area of the country, but once investigated, most would be allowed to enter political life again so long as they did not pursue a Communist line. Said Chin: "I and my people will never submit to investigation."

Humiliation. Here Singapore's David Marshall took a hand: "As a human being, I ask you to realize that there are 7,000,000 people in Malaya and 3,000 Communists. I appeal to you to think of their welfare and to accept the sacrifice of your pride in the mild humiliation which you state is implied in the investigation of the loyalty of M.C.P. members before their release." Said Chin: "To report to the police means surrender." Snapped the Tengku: "I will never give in, so you must give in." Replied Chin: "The amnesty means surrender. Surrender means humiliation. We will not accept surrender at any time. We will carry on the struggle to the last man."

Within an hour Chin was on his way back to Thailand. In Penang, a newly arrived contingent of Australian troops prepared for action in the jungle. Time

In Malaya, where 98% of the Communist strength is among the Chinese, Manap Jepun was a key man. He was one of the few Malayans who would desert Allah for Marx. So he was placed in command of the loth (Malay) Regiment, a unit about 150 men strong and the only all-Malayan regiment on the Communist side.

For two years he held almost undisputed control of the back jungle country in Pahang, terrorizing villagers with his senseless cruelty. Late in 1950, disgusted with his ruthlessness and disillusioned with Communism, many of his own soldiers began to desert him. In one week, more than 10 of them surrendered. Since then, Manap Jepun, with only a small cadre of Chinese terrorists, has been pressed back into the northern mountains, hounded by British teams accompanied by his former followers, eager for the $25,000 price on his head.

Last week, Gurkha jungle fighters, acting on an informer's tip, set an ambush in the mountainous jungle. Into it walked Manap Jepun carrying a Sten gun. A fusillade of shots brought him down. Time

Shout before you shoot!

For the past three months of their eight-year war against Malaya's Communist terrorists, British and Malayan police and soldiers have been so ordered: before firing on suspects, they must call out the offer of a free pardon. The order stemmed from Malaya's recently elected popular government, which had the praiseworthy but perilous idea of starting the record of independent government by offering an amnesty to Communists. Last week the Communist guerrillas, after dickering briefly with the government about a truce , (they insisted on a Panmunjom-style international armistice commission, plus recognition as a legal political party), plainly showed that they preferred a shooting to a shouting war.

Under cover of a heavy monsoon downpour, 150 terrorists crept up to the barbed wire surrounding the jungle village of Kea in central Malaya, cut through the wire and attacked with machine guns. Quickly subduing the police, they forced the Home Guard commander to deliver up Kea's 35-gun armory, then looted the village of all transportable food. Just as they were about to leave, they called on the village headman to lead them to the house of Vegetable Farmer Chou Yin-san. Said a villager later: "The headman had to show them Chou's house. After he did, they didn't say anything. Chou looked at them inquiringly. They slit his throat." By this act (standard for suspected police informers), the Communists signaled to all Southeast Asia the fact that they were as ruthlessly opposed to the now democratic government of Malaya as they had been to colonialism.

The terrorists had hardly melted back into the jungle before the Royal Regiment of Artillery's 25-pounders began laying down heavy barrages on suspected Communist jungle hideouts. In Kuala Lumpur, headquarters of the British and Malayan forces, General Sir Geoffrey Bourne announced tersely that all-out war against the terrorists would be resumed immediately, canceled the order to "shout before you shoot." The reason Communists could face up to the resumption of a shooting war with some confidence lay not so much in the Federation of Malaya as in the British island colony of Singapore at the southern tip of the Malayan peninsula. Here, with considerable success, the Communists have dropped terrorism for a policy of infiltration in the predominantly Chinese population (Singapore has 900,000 Chinese to 20,000 Europeans). The Communist spearhead in Singapore is the Chinese student movement, among whom are an estimated 20.000 fanatical Communists.

Prompted by professional Communist organizers smuggled in from Red China, the students intimidate their teachers and bully their parents into adopting Communist attitudes. They provide mass support for popular demonstrations, and maintain a flow of anti-Western propaganda, e.g., against American movies, popular songs, clothes, books and ideas, all of which they call "yellow." A Chinese youth was recently stabbed for playing "yellow" songs —on his harmonica, while many have been beaten for attending "yellow" movies. The British method of handling the colonial problem in Singapore, without losing control of the rich commercial port, has been to let the people govern themselves. Singaporeans responded last April by electing a Labor Front government led by a spaniel-eyed criminal lawyer named David Marshall, who campaigned noisily on an anti-British, anticolonial bias, but in office has had to rely on British help to maintain order. In the past nine months there have been 220 strikes in Singapore, mostly Communist-inspired, aimed at crippling the port's economy.

More significant still is the appearance of a crypto-Communist parliamentary opposition led by the People's Action Party, whose spokesman is baby-faced Lee Kuan-yew, a Malaya-born Chinese. Lee Kuan-yew cannot read or write Chinese, but he graduated with high honors from Britain's Cambridge University. Lee's opposition never misses an opportunity of disrupting or discrediting the fledgling government.

The objective: to win sufficient popular support to carry the next general election and set up a legitimate Communist government. Lee's ruthless attack has at last aroused some spirit of resistance among the Labor liberals. Last week, in a confidence vote on a minor budget issue, Marshall defeated the crypto-Communists 19 to 13. But, said a State Department official last week: "We are more worried about Singapore than any place in Southeast Asia." Time

One of the difficulties in discussing Islam's more troubling doctrines is that they have an anachronistic, even otherworldly, feel to them; that is, unless actively and openly upheld by Muslims, non-Muslims, particularly of the Western variety, tend to see them as abstract theory, not standard practice for today. In fact, some Westerners have difficulties acknowledging even those problematic doctrines that are openly upheld by Muslims — such as jihad. How much more when the doctrines in question are subtle, or stealthy, in nature?

Enter Nidal Malik Hasan, the psychiatrist, U.S. Army major, and "observant Muslim who prayed daily," who recently went on a shooting rampage at Fort Hood, killing thirteen Americans (including a pregnant woman). While the media wonders in exasperation why he did it, offering the same old tired and trite reasons — he was "picked on," he was "mentally unbalanced" — the fact is his behavior comports well with certain Islamic doctrines. As such, it behooves Americans to take a moment and familiarize themselves with the esotericisms of Islam.

Note: Any number of ulema (Muslim scholars) have expounded the following doctrines. However, since jihadi icon and theoretician Ayman Zawahiri, al-Qaeda's number two, has also addressed many of these doctrines in his treatises, including by quoting several authoritative ulema, I will primarily rely on excerpts from The Al Qaeda Reader (AQR), for those readers who wish to source, and read in context, the following quotes in one volume.

Wala' wa Bara'
Perhaps best translated as "loyalty and enmity," this doctrine requires, continue to the article in full here.......