L'antisémitisme arabo-mahométan

http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/a_s_170408e.htm

Un rapport accablant !

Dangers du multiculturalisme

Necla Kelek ( sociologue allemande d'origine turque ). Des propos qui valent également pour la France et que devraient méditer les irresponsables qui défendent le port du voile à l'école ou prévoient des horaires séparés pour les femmes musulmanes dans les piscines :

" Car il faut le dire clairement : avec leur vision folklorique des étrangers, les tenants gauchistes et libéraux du multiculturalisme ont rendu un très mauvais service à l'intégration. Agitant l'étendard de la tolérance, ils ont défendu les divers particularismes de la communauté turco-musulmane en Allemagne, et ont ainsi favorisé l'auto-exclusion des immigrés. Une tolérance prête à accepter, même à respecter, l'intolérance et la violence quotidienne des rapports comme faisant partie intégrante d'un " autre contexte culturel " apparaît en fin de compte comme vide de sens, et renonce de fait à organiser la société selon des critères généraux de droits et de devoirs. Les Droits de l'Homme, les droits fondamentaux, ne sont pas disponibles en tranches, ni ne peuvent se négocier au cas par cas culturel. Ce sont les fondements d'une société éclairée, et ils doivent être défendus quelles que soient les circonstances sociales. Celui qui n'y est pas prêt plaide la cause de l'obscurantisme. Aussi longtemps que la société allemande n'a pas réellement pris conscience de ce noyau identitaire qui est le sien propre, et qu'elle ne s'est pas montrée prête à le défendre avec détermination, l'intégration n'aura aucune chance de réussir. La liberté individuelle, telle qu'elle est garantie par la Constitution, couplée à des devoirs vis-à-vis de la société, c'est là ce que la démocratie allemande peut proposer aux autres. C'est une proposition magnifique, surtout pour des personnes issuées d'autres civilisations, qui ne savent pas qu'existent de tels droits indivuduels. "

Necla Kelek. La fiancée importée.

La police politique mahométane sévit en Angleterre

Two Christian preachers were stopped from handing out Bible tracts by police officers because they were in a Muslim neighborhood in England.

According to British news reports, the preachers were told by a Muslim community support police officer in Birmingham that attempting to convert Muslims to Christianity is a hate crime.

They were warned that if they came back and were beaten up, it would be their fault, not that of the thugs who beat them.

"He said we were in a Muslim area and were not allowed to spread our Christian message," one of the preachers said. "He said we were committing a hate crime by telling the youths to leave Islam and said that he was going to take us to the police station." The officer threatened, “If you come back here and get beaten up, well you have been warned."

Remember, this was not in the Middle East. It was a neighborhood in Birmingham, England, a nation whose official church is the Church of England, a Christian denomination.

The preachers were Americans who have lived in England for many years and they were obeying Christ's command to preach the Gospel to all mankind and not merely to those who are not offended by hearing His message of love. It's called freedom of speech. Except in England where it is a hate crime to preach in what have become “no-go” areas for Christian preachers.

It gets worse. British columnist Melanie Phillips reported an attack on the Rev. Michael Ainsworth by three Muslim youths in his own East London churchyard. She wrote that it was far from the first such attack in the area. Indeed, she wrote, "There appear to have been many attacks on vicars or churches by Muslims who are clearly intent on turning east London into a no-go area for Christians."

Phillips recalled another attack on the church, where families were showered with glass when a brick was thrown through a window during a service. Allan Ramanoop, a member of the Parochial Church Council, told her that parishioners are often too scared to challenge the gangs.

On one occasion, youths shouted: "This should not be a church, this should be a mosque, you should not be here."

Said Ramanoop, "I just walked away from it -- you are too frightened to challenge them. We have church windows smashed two to three times a month. The youths are anti-Christian."

The Reverend Alan Green said it was the latest in a series of “faith hate” crimes in the borough. “There are one or two incidents of faith hate every month across the borough and across all faiths.”

Talk about hate crimes.

The real tragedy lies in the fact that governments all over the western world are not only turning a blind eye to Muslim efforts to establish communities ruled by Sharia -- Muslim law -- in defiance of established national law, but are enacting laws that would punish those who place their nation's traditional interests above those of a foreign faith.

We're going to see more of this as you see governments kowtowing to Muslim extremists.

The more you see the Muslim influence coming into the United States the more you are going to see Muslims demanding and getting laws defining the promotion of Christianity to Islamists as a hate crime that will get you tossed in the slammer.

Don't tell me what happened in London can't happen here. It can and it will. It's called Jihad, and it's world-wide.

Islam : de l'art de battre sa femme

Within the worldwide Muslim community, there are a number of actions that most clear thinking individuals would consider barbarous towards women. They include stonings, honor killings, clitorectomies (female circumcisions), forced clothing (hijabs, burkas, etc.), and wife-beatings. While many Muslims have suggested that these acts are cultural rather than religious tenets of Islam, one Islamic scholar, Jamal Badawi, has written a book using the religion to justify the latter act. If he feels this way, one has to ask why so many Muslims, including female Muslims, continue to embrace him and his teachings.

This month’s edition of Southern California In Focus, a publication subsidized by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), features an interview with Jamal Badawi, a popular speaker at many North American Muslim functions, whilst sporting a picture of him on the homepage of its website. The title of the piece is ‘Catching up with one of the world’s greatest minds.’ In it, Badawi discusses what he perceives to be the state of Islam in both the United States and Canada, where he is currently living. What is not discussed are his controversial views about the treatment of women.

Attached to the page containing the In Focus interview are images of the covers of three books Badawi has authored. One of the books, Gender Equity in Islam, is his most widely known work, mainly for its justification of the beating of wives by their husbands.

In the book, Badawi wrote, “In the event of a family dispute, the Qur’an exhorts the husband to treat his wife kindly and not to overlook her positive aspects. If the problem relates to the wife’s behavior, her husband may exhort her and appeal for reason. In most cases, this measure is likely to be sufficient. In cases where the problem continues, the husband may express his displeasure in another peaceful manner by sleeping in a separate bed from hers. There are cases, however where a wife persists in deliberate mistreatment of her husband and disregard for her marital obligations. Instead of divorce, the husband may resort to another measure that may save the marriage, at least in some cases. Such a measure is more accurately described as a gentle tap on the body...”

He then quoted directly from the Quran to exhibit the origins of his beliefs. He stated, “As to those women on whose part you fear disloyalty and ill conduct, admonish them (first), (next) refuse to share their beds (and last) beat them (lightly).” Badawi described this as a “permissible beating” and said that Islamic jurists have determined that this could be performed by means of a miswak (small toothbrush).

Badawi wrote Gender Equity in Islam under the aegis of the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY), an organization whose leaders have called for the destruction of Israel and the United States and who was raided in May of 2002 for alleged terror-related activity. The book was published, in 1995, by American Trust Publications (ATP), a subsidiary of “unindicted co-conspirator” of the 2007 Dallas Hamas financing trial, the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT).

Indeed, Badawi has been tied to the most radical of Muslim organizations. Currently, he is a board member of CAIR-Canada and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). Like NAIT, both CAIR and ISNA were named as “unindicted co-conspirators” of the 2007 trial, as was Badawi himself.

Another group Badawi is associated with is Islam Online (IOL), a website that supports suicide bombings, mandates terrorist attacks against American troops, and discusses how to behead humans. Badawi is an IOL Shari’ah (Islamic law) Scholar and has written fatwas (legal decisions) on a number of issues for the site.

In one fatwa, ‘Wife Beating in Islamic Perspective,’ dated April of 2004, Badawi repeated nearly word for word what he stated in his book. But instead of referring to the abuse as a “permissible beating,” he called it a “permissible striking” and a “light striking.”

With respect to polygamy, another form of spousal abuse, in the May 2005 IOL fatwa, ‘Having a Second Wife in Western Countries,’ Badawi wrote, “[W]hy would a particular person want to have a second wife, even though it might be acceptable or legitimate under the Islamic Shari’ah? Because there is also a spirit of why polygamy has been permitted even though it has not been codified in the Qur’an... If the Western world reciprocated to Muslims in the West the same kind of tolerance and acceptance of autonomy in issues pertinent to religious practice, including marriage, I think polygamy would be quite legitimate, and there would be no contradiction between what is permissible under the Islamic Shari’ah and what is permissible under the Western laws.”

Badawi also has his own radio show hosted on IslamiCity, a website that repeatedly calls for the murder of Jews and repeatedly “curses” Jews and Christians.

On one of his shows, titled ‘Marital Relations V (Husband’s Rights),’ he cited the “Prophet Muhammad,” saying that husbands have “claims” on their wives, as if they were property, and that one of the “basic criteria” for wives to be eligible to reach “paradise” (Heaven) is that they must “obey” their husbands. He labeled Muhammad’s statement, “If I were to command any human being to prostrate [bow] before any other human being, I would have ordered the wife to prostrate before her husband, because of his claim on her,” a “Prophetic saying.”

And on his IslamiCity show, titled ‘Marital Problems,’ with examples from his religious texts, he went into detail about how a husband should come to beat his wife. He stated the following:

“[In] case of persistent defiance and lack of cooperation on the part of the wife, in a way that threatens the integrity of the family, there is a measure to be taken, what you might call a phased discipline that could be implemented.

“The first one that the verse mentions is kind exhortation... The husband could go to her, could appeal to his intimate relationship with her, appeal to love and affection. He may appeal to the fear of G-d and, being G-d conscious, remind her of her duty, as Islam prescribes, and the need to protect her future and the future of the family... to respond to reasonable requests and reasonable exhortation on the part of her husband.

“Well, needless to say that the majority of cases, any wife or woman who is reasonably decent and [a] reasonable person is very likely to respond to this kind type of approach, softer type of approach. But again, we know that not every woman would be that sensitive, that decent...

“So the second measure that the passage mentions is also the possibility of suspending [his] intimate relationship with the wife... Some jurists say not even to sleep in a different bed, but simply not to approach the wife for [an] intimate relationship. The idea behind it is to try to bring that haughtiness – being haughty, rebellious, inconsiderate, unreasonable – to bring this down to a reasonable level by showing that... one cannot accept this kind of relationship or treatment...

“Now, again, if this doesn’t work, which would be in [a] lesser number of cases, what to do? Divorce? If the first and second step does not work, well, there is one more thing, which may be resorted to as a last resort, just within the private relationship between husband and wife, before divorce, to avert the possibility of divorce. It need not be useful in all cases, but in some cases it may be, and that is a light and symbolical chastisement...

“It’s not just because somebody got angry or had a bad day or anything of that sort. It really deals with a situation of serious infraction, serious breaking of orders and discipline within the family. Like some jurists indicated that some of the cases of rebellion would be like a wife who just leaves her husband’s house and stays in some other place, refuses to respond to any request or reasonable or fair demand on his part...

“[C]hastisement should be such that it can never lead to injury or even leave a mark on the body... [A] great companion of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, Ibn Abbas... he said, “What chastisement with what?” He was himself wondering... it has to be very light, should not leave a mark, and even in that case what could be used? He said a miswak... something like a toothbrush. Imagine chastising with a toothbrush... [A] slight thing like that might lead the wife to throw herself in her husband’s arm and cry, and that might mend the situation rather than going through a drastic action like divorce.”

For Southern California In Focus to refer to Jamal Badawi as “one of the world’s greatest minds” is to ignore the violence that Badawi defends and rationalizes. And given the fact that the Board President and former Managing Editor of In Focus is Asma Ahmad, a woman, is doubly troubling. No doubt, Muslim women across the globe are suffering, because of what Badawi and his ilk have used their religion to write and say.

The lead story for this month’s In Focus is ‘A Few Good Men: American Muslim women bemoan lack of ‘good’ male suitors.’ Pictured on the cover is a sad girl in a wedding dress. It’s no wonder Muslim women are finding it hard to locate good men, when people like Badawi and his supporters exist only to ruin their lives.

Muslim Rape Wave in Sweden

Swedish girls Malin and Amanda were on their way to a party on New Year's Eve when they were assaulted, raped and beaten half to death by four Somali immigrants. Sweden's largest newspaper has presented the perpetrators as "two men from Sweden, one from Finland and one from Somalia", a testimony as to how bad the informal censorship is in stories related to immigration in Sweden. Similar incidents are reported with shocking frequency, to the point where some observers fear that law and order is completely breaking down in the country. The number of rape charges in Sweden has tripled in just above twenty years. Rape cases involving children under the age of 15 are six - 6 - times as common today as they were a generation ago. Most other kinds of violent crime have rapidly increased, too. Instability is spreading to most urban and suburban areas.

According to a new study from the Crime Prevention Council, Brå, it is four times more likely that a known rapist is born abroad, compared to persons born in Sweden. Resident aliens from Algeria, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia dominate the group of rape suspects. According to these statistics, almost half of all perpetrators are immigrants. In Norway and Denmark, we know that non-Western immigrants, which frequently means Muslims, are grossly overrepresented on rape statistics. In Oslo, Norway, immigrants were involved in two out of three rape charges in 2001. The numbers in Denmark were the same, and even higher in the city of Copenhagen with three out of four rape charges. Sweden has a larger immigrant, including Muslim, population than any other country in northern Europe. The numbers there are likely to be at least as bad as with its Scandinavian neighbors. The actual number is thus probably even higher than what the authorities are reporting now, as it doesn't include second generation immigrants. Lawyer Ann Christine Hjelm, who has investigated violent crimes in Svea high court, found that 85 per cent of the convicted rapists were born on foreign soil or by foreign parents.

A group of Swedish teenage girls has designed a belt that requires two hands to remove and which they hope will deter would-be rapists. "It's like a reverse chastity belt," one of the creators, 19-year-old Nadja Björk, told AFP, meaning that the wearer is in control, instead of being controlled. Björk and one of her partners now plan to start a business to mass produce the belts and are currently in negotiations with potential partners. "But I'm not doing this for the money," she said. "I'm really passionate about stopping rape. I think it's terrible." In an online readers' poll from the newspaper Aftonbladet, 82% of the women expressed fear to go outside after dark. There are reports of rapes happening in broad daylight. 30 guests in a Swedish public bath watched as 17 girl was raped recently, and nobody did anything. The girl was first approached by 16-year-old boy. He and his friends followed her as she walked away to the grotto, and inside the grotto he got her blocked in the corner, ripped off her bikini and raped her, while his friend held her firm.

There are even reports of Swedish girls being attacked and cut with knives on the dance floor. A 21-year-old man who came to Sweden a couple of years ago admits that he has a low opinion of Swedish females –or “whores” as he calls them. He is now prosecuted, suspecteded of cutting eight girls in several pubs. He is also charged with raping a girl at a private party, and with sexually harassing another girl in the apartment. Several witnesses claim that the 21 year old has said that he hates Swedish women.

Some Muslim immigrants admit their bias quite openly. An Islamic Mufti in Copenhagen sparked a political outcry after publicly declaring that women who refuse to wear headscarves are "asking for rape." Apparently, he's not the only one thinking this way. “It is not as wrong raping a Swedish girl as raping an Arab girl,” says Hamid. “The Swedish girl gets a lot of help afterwards, and she had probably fucked before, anyway. But the Arab girl will get problems with her family. For her, being raped is a source of shame. It is important that she retains her virginity until she marries.” It was no coincidence that it was a Swedish girl that was gang raped in Rissne – this becomes obvious from the discussion with Ali, Hamid, Abdallah and Richard. All four have disparaging views on Swedish girls, and think this attitude is common among young men with immigrant background. “It is far too easy to get a Swedish whore…… girl, I mean;” says Hamid, and laughs over his own choice of words. “Many immigrant boys have Swedish girlfriends when they are teenagers. But when they get married, they get a proper woman from their own culture who has never been with a boy. That’s what I am going to do. I don’t have too much respect for Swedish girls. I guess you can say they get fucked to pieces.”

The number of rapes committed by Muslim immigrants in Western nations are so extremely high that it is difficult to view them only as random acts of individuals. It resembles warfare. Muhammad himself had forced sex (rape) with several of his slave girls/concubines. This is perfectly allowed, both in the sunna and in the Koran. If you postulate that many of the Muslims in Europe view themselves as a conquering army and that European women are simply war booty, it all makes perfect sense and is in full accordance with Islamic law. Western women are not so much regarded by most Muslims as individuals, but as "their women," the women who "belong" to hostile Infidels. They are booty, to be taken, just as the land of the Infidels someday will drop, it is believed, into Muslim hand. This is not mere crime, but ideologically-justified crime or rather, in Muslim eyes, attacks on Infidels scarcely qualify as crime. Western women are cheap and offensive. We Muslims are here, here to stay, and we have a right to take advantage of this situation. It is our view of the matter that should prevail. Western goods, like the land on which we now live, belong to Allah and to the best of men -- his Believers. Western women, too, essentially belong to us -- our future booty. No wonder there is a deep and increasing suspicion against Muslims in the Swedish and European public.

Sweden has national elections less than a year from now. Here is a suggested draft email, in English and Swedish, that you can send in to Swedish politicians and media to protest the lack of honesty about what Muslim immigration is doing to the country:

I would hereby like to protest against the passivity and the lack of resolve demonstrated by Swedish authorities in the face of a huge spike in the number of rapes in their country. It is time for Swedish politicians, Swedish media and the Swedish public to admit that the large increase in the number of rape charges in their country during the past generation is intimately tied to the immigration that has taken place during that same time period. The attitude among many Muslim men is that women who are not veiled and act properly submissive have themselves to blame if something happens to them. Such a line of thinking is incompatible with the culture of freedom in any Western country. It means that as long as Muslim immigration continues, Sweden will continue to import an Islamic culture that will destroy women’s freedom in Swedish society. The strains caused by immigration are now so large that unless something serious is done about this, pretty soon Sweden will face the same kind of riots we have recently seen in France, and will approach the point of permanent ethnic and religious strife. Swedish politicians and media need to put the well-being of their daughters above that of political correctness and their own Multicultural vanity, and it is shocking that they actually need to be reminded of this. It is an international embarrassment to Sweden as a nation that Swedes travel around the world to lecture about women’s rights, and at the same time their own young women are finding that their most basic rights, such as being able to go outside wearing normal clothes without being harassed, are slipping away. It’s a sham, and it needs to end. Unless Swedish authorities are able to provide basic security to a population that pays some of the highest tax rates in the world, the Swedish government should publicly admit its inadequacy and resign from office. At the very least, it should be honest enough to tell Swedish citizens that they have to provide security for themselves, and stop making it difficult for people to do this. The Swedish general elections are less than a year away, and this time, Muslim immigration needs to be raised to the very top of the public agenda.

Ethnic War in Brussels: Moroccans Attack "Whites"

Just yesterday Islam in Action reported the rape of a non-Muslim woman in Brussels, for not wearing a headscarf. Today I am here to report more Islamic hostility in Brussels. A group of Moroccan youths rioted and attacked a group of white supporters of the football club RSC Anderlecht. The evening before the attack, a blog had called for attacks on the "white" supporters of the club, and "to burn pubs, houses and cars." It seems that Muslims once again have problems getting along with non-Muslims. All we have to do is look towards Europe to see what is coming our way here in the U.S.A. There were the Islamic French riots of 2005 which spread to at least 30 towns and cities, once again in 2007, the Islamic Denmark riots which spread to at least 20 towns and were little reported by the media and now this. It is like a plague slowly spreading across Europe. Will we learn from their mistakes?

Dans la série des petites capitulations devant l'intolérance mahométane

Un musulman a obtenu après l’avoir exigé de façon véhémente le retrait d’un crucifix accroché au mur de la chambre de sa fille soignée dans une clinique catholique de Bourgoin-Jallieu (Isère), indique le Dauphiné libéré dans son édition de mercredi.Lundi en fin d’après midi, à la clinique Saint-Vincent de Paul, le père d’une petite fille, qui venait de subir une intervention chirurgicale programmée, a demandé que le personnel décroche un crucifix de la chambre de sa fille. “Pendant près d’un quart d’heure, le père en présence de son épouse s’est emporté verbalement, exigeant que le crucifix soit décroché”, a raconté un témoin, cité par le Dauphiné libéré. Le personnel de l’établissement a finalement cédé à cette exigence.

La direction de la clinique a exprimé son étonnement. La directrice de la clinique, Marie-Thérèse Besson, a déclaré au Dauphiné libéré que cette demande était “surprenante de la part d’une famille qui a choisi librement notre établissement“.
“Quand les gens choisissent d’être soignés dans notre établissement (…) ils savent qu’ils sont dans une maternité catholique”, a ajouté Mme Besson.

Les nazislamistes iraniens veulent la bombe atomique

"Hit us and we shall hit you ten times harder!" This is how General Muhammad-Ali Jaafari, the newly appointed commander-in-chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard (IRGC) has responded to speculation about a possible attack by the United States and/or Israel on Iran's nuclear installations.

Jaafari replaced General Yahya Safavi last year after the latter made a speech in which he implicitly warned the mullahs that Iran's military was not ready for war against far more powerful enemies.

Those familiar with Iranian military capabilities know that it is Safavi's sober assessment, and not Jaafari's bluster, that reflects the true situation.

The problem is that Jaafari can make his claim because he, and his political masters in Tehran, are convinced there would be no military action against their regime.

In 2005, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the then newly-minted President of the Islamic Republic and darling of the IRGC, unveiled a strategy based on the assumption that once George W. Bush is out of the White House, the United States would bite the bullet and accept a nuclear-armed Islamic Republic as "regional superpower" in the Middle East.

Two events convinced Ahmadinejad that his strategy was correct:

The first came in May 2006 when the Bush administration, then at the nadir of its unpopularity because of the situation in Iraq, joined the line of supplicant Europeans begging Tehran to negotiate a deal.

That unexpected shift in Washington's policy produced the opposite effect.

Far from persuading Ahamdinejad that this was a good time to defuse the situation, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's attempt at nuance and multilateral diplomacy convinced Tehran that the Americans had blinked.

The second event that confirmed Ahmadinejad's belief that "America cannot do a damn thing" came with last year's National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). Using a language of obfuscation, the NIE claimed that Tehran had abandoned key aspect of its nuclear program in 2003. The NIE undermined the whole case brought by the International Atomic Energy Agency against the Islamic Republic.

Whatever one might say about Ahmadinejad, one thing is certain: he plays an open hand. He is convinced that the US does not have the stomach for a fight and that Bush is the last American president to even dream of pre-emptive war.

He thinks the dominant mood in the US, and the West in general, is one of pre-emptive surrender.

Ahmadinejad may well be right: there is not going to be any war against the Islamic Republic.

Here is why: as soon as there are tangible moves, not just threats, leaked through The New Yorker's investigative reporters, that could threaten the existence of he Khomeinist regime, Tehran will announce a temporary suspension of its uranium enrichment program in accordance with three United Nations' Security Council resolutions.

Such an announcement will instantly defuse the situation, break the diplomatic coalition created by Bush, and, possibly, even inspire Nancy Pelosi to praise Ahmadinejad as a man of peace. To launch a war against Iran in such a situation would become politically impossible, even if John McCain is president.

A temporary suspension would not undermine Iran's plans to build a "nuclear surge capacity" - that is to say producing all that is needed for making atomic warheads without actually manufacturing bombs. Iranians, inspired by 3,000 years of history, know the value of patience. They are not in a hurry. They know that weaving a Persian carpet sometimes takes years.

In 2003, Iran did announce a suspension of its uranium program. Now, however, we know that even during that suspension, Tehran was working on other aspects of its nuclear project.

This time, the regime might accept another temporary suspension only if its own survival is at stake.

Taking measures that might hurt the people of Iran won't do the trick. The mullahs are as concerned about the welfare of their people as Saddam Hussein was about that of the Iraqis and Robert Mugabe is of the Zimbabweans. Sanctions already imposed by the UN make life more difficult for the average Iranian but have little effect on the regime.

This means that the Islamic Republic will not, indeed cannot, offer any concessions unless faced with the prospect of regime change.

Ahmadinejad has said as much, albeit in different words.

He has castigated his predecessor Muhammad Khatami for accepting suspension in 2003 when the regime was not in danger. Khatami says he did so because at the time, shortly after the fall of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, he feared that the Americans might make a right turn and march on Tehran as well.

In other words, it was fear of regime change that persuaded the mullahs to accept suspension five years ago. As soon as that fear was gone and Bush appeared to be headed for a political lynching in his own country, the program was resumed at an even faster pace.

The way Western politicians talk about it, one gets the impression that the Iranian nuclear issue is a quirk of the mullahs that could be fixed with the threat of sticks and promise of carrots. It is not.

The Iranian nuclear issue has three layers.

The first concerns the power struggle in Tehran. Ahmadinejad has built his macho image on this issue. If he backs down he will be politically dead.

The second layer concerns the regime's strategy for hegemony in the Middle East. The Islamic Republic needs tactical "nuclear parity" to guarantee it won't be attacked with nuclear weapons as it proceeds to drive the Americans out of the Middle East, help destroy Israel as a Jewish state, and impose Khomeinism on the Arabs in the name of Islamic unity.

The third layer concerns the regime's ambitions, spelled out by Ahmadinejad and others, to create an international coalition to challenge the global system dominated by the United States.

Ahmadinejad has already promised anti-American regimes in Latin America "full support and protection" against the "Great Satan" in Washington. Iran is already laying the foundations for an armaments industry in Venezuela. One day a nuclear-armed Islamic Republic may extend its nuclear umbrella to Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Paraguay, Ecuador and, why not, even Cuba.

The Islamic Republic has been at war against the United States and the international system it leads for almost 30 years. This has been a low intensity war because the US and its allies have shied away from full-scale confrontation. The US has shown it has lots of power but not the courage to use even a fraction of it. The Islamic Republic's power, on the other hand, is "tiny," as Senator Barack Obama has noted. But the mullahs have been prepared to use that "tiny" power in full, with already devastating effects.

The issue is not how to avoid war with the Islamic Republic. It is how to end a war that has been going on for almost 30 years.

As in all wars there are three ways to end this one: surrender, make a deal, or win.

Europe facing radicalization over the Web

Olivier Guitta

A few months ago Bernard Squarcini the head of the DST (Direction de la Surveillance du Territoire), the French equivalent of the FBI, told the French daily Libération regarding Islamic radicalization: "An ideological transformation can be done in three months on the Web. An individual can at night auto-radicalize himself via the Web and get in touch with leaders of terrorist organizations." This assessment shows how dire the situation is in Europe when it comes to al-Qaida's use of the Web.

Al-Qaida uses the web for four different tasks: propaganda; communication, mostly to instruct those in the field; training future combatants, a kind of online university of terrorism; and to send messages to the enemy, mostly to the West.

For instance, one of the most popular jihadist sites in France is one which translates books on the jihad in French and gives lessons on urban guerilla tactics. (This site got more than 3 million visits from France alone). Another Web site explains how to get weapons in the West (hide, assemble and breakdown) and how to manufacture bombs from products found in supermarkets.

The propaganda primarily targets youngsters. Some of them join the virtual jihad or "webtifada", i.e. cyber criminality.

In March 2006, the DGSE (Direction Générale de la Sécurité Exterieure), the French equivalent of the CIA, tracked down a forum where jihadists recruited hackers to destroy "infidels'" Web sites and government sites. The jihadists recommended: "If you can't slash their throats, then at least destroy their sites." And on May 15, 2006 the Metz, France police arrested a young man who, under the alias Yanis, had attacked 1,161 sites including 710 linked to the Muhammad cartoons controversy.

Fortunately in Europe, even though the number is growing only a minority is actually joining the virtual jihad. According to Louis Caprioli, ex-boss of the anti-terror unit of the DST, the number of French volunteers in Iraq is in the tens. Confirming this, expert Walter Akmouche states that statistically, to get one jihadi, you must contact an average 45,000 people.

Which vehicle do the jihadis use on the Web? According to the DST, the chat room Paltalk is regularly used to hide operations. They also use Instant Messaging services such as Messenger or Skype and "dead e-mail boxes" which allow them, with the username and password, to retrieve unsent messages. But they also exchange information and coded files on forums devoted to soccer, music or any topic totally unrelated to Islam.

It is important to note that to access true terrorist sites; one has to be an insider and needs to know the real number-coded URL address, which often changes.

Also after years of research, al-Qaida has developed software called "Secrets of Mujahedin," that allows secure exchange in Arabic on electronic networks. It has allegedly been in use for over a year on clandestine forums close to al-Qaida, especially for jihadist groups in Iraq and al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb. This has been a formidable weapon for al-Qaida and numerous intelligence services and private companies have been trying to break it.

How is Europe facing this threat? First by closely monitoring jihadist Web sites. For instance, last year, Holland devoted 10 million euros (about $15 million) to fighting extremism. Thus, more than 150 Internet sites broadcasting extremist ideology were the subject of complaints and were restricted.

In France, about 30 potentially dangerous sites are monitored by some units of the UCLAT (Unité de Coordination de la Lutte antiterroriste), the French counterterrorism coordination unit. Software allows them to trace back the origin of a server or the IP address of a user and if they act fast, they can trace the network and use it against the Islamists using it. For instance, the recent monitoring of a forum allowed the unit to trace a couple of Salafist groups in the suburbs of Paris that were recruiting jihadis and organizing their trip.

One of the main problems facing European authorities is that simply shutting down Web sites is not very efficient since these sites just end up operating under new names.

European countries are also using the legal tool to fight al-Qaida's use of the Web in Europe. In a first, a Swiss court last summer sentenced several individuals including the widow of the killer of Ahmad Shah Massoud, Afghanistan's Northern Alliance's leader killed by al-Qaida on September 9, 2001, and her boyfriend, for having created and operated four Web sites and chat rooms for extremist propaganda and exchange of information by terrorist groups.

European authorities are taking this issue very seriously. On Feb. 1, France's interior minister, Michèle Alliot-Marie told the French daily Le Figaro that the use of the Web by terrorists was "one of my major concerns, and one of the priorities assigned to the [security] services. This requires additional material, forces specialized in fighting cyber-criminality, legal resources. I want us to be able to stop the terrorist propaganda, find the operational networks, track them down and prevent them from acting."

--

Olivier Guitta, an adjunct fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and a foreign affairs and counterterrorism consultant, is the founder of the newsletter The Croissant (www.thecroissant.com).

Strategy A Way to Defeat Political Islam

Before we discuss strategy, we must declare our moral purpose. Our moral purpose is to defend the very existence of the culture of the Golden Rule, an ethical civilization, from the 1400-year assault by the dualistic ethics of political Islam. We must stop the continued killing of kafirs, the enslavement of humanity and the spread of terror by Islam.

The Situation
Islam represents 20% of the world's population and is growing. Islam is united, has a vision, a strategy and successful tactics.

Political correctness and multi-culturalism rule our world. Our government will not help in this war and instead gives aid and comfort to the "minority" Muslims. Our government is staffed by multiculturalists who will give every edge to Muslims. Our schools have been occupied by the Muslim Brotherhood and the dhimmi leftist professors.

Kafirs are divided into Christian, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, atheist, conservative and liberal. Each of the divisions has further divisions. The relations between the groups is marked by historical rivalries and hatreds. No group comprehends the suffering of others at the hands of Islam. So not only do none of the victims know their own story, they do not know the story of the others.

The Muslims have a great momentum. They are taking over by birth and immigration. We have fewer children while Muslims have huge families. Osama bin Laden has 53 children. Demographic statistics show that France will become Islamic in the year 2020. Run the population numbers.

Islam knows us well. Islam knows our history, secret shame, rivalries and hatreds, weaknesses and divisions. Kafirs don't know anything about Islam. We may fear and dislike it but that is just "feelings", not knowledge. Our so-called experts (none of whom know the actual doctrine of political Islam) make apologies and tell us that all of Islam's problems are caused by our poor governmental policies.

We are filled with cultural self-loathing, demoralized, fatalistic, nihilistic, too fat and too rich. (Wealthy people are weak at war, they have too much to protect.) We have lost the mind of war and feel that "peace" is the moral high ground. We are pacifists in the face of jihad. Our artists extol the virtues of peace with no knowledge about what happens when peaceful people are vanquished.

A Strategy for the Weak
At this stage of our intellectual and emotional development, our strategies are limited. We are too weak to attack Islam and need an opening strategy for now.

First, we must learn the doctrine of political Islam. We must know the enemy. We must also know who our allies are and who are the allies of Islam. We have two sets of enemies-the far enemy, Islam, and the near enemy-those who apologize for Islam, the dhimmis.

The thought of actually attacking Islam is too frightening at this stage of the game. However, we can make flanking attacks on our enemy's allies, the apologists. Even dhimmis can think about attacking or pressuring the near enemy.

We can make a flanking attack on our enemy by attacking his strategies. We must expose Islam through its doctrine from the Koran, the Sunna (the Hadith and the Sira). According to Sun Tsu in The Art of War, attacking your enemy's strategy is the highest level strategy. And Islam's strategy is laid out in the Trilogy. We now have the weapons, the books exposing their strategy.

Another principle of Sun Tsu is to shape the enemy. Islam always poses as a religion to cloak their politics . It is useless to attack a religion, so Islamic politics are under the radar. We must shape Islam as a political doctrine. We must attack the far enemy-political Islam.

le nouveau jihadisme

We are fighting the wrong foe. Over the past six years, the nature of the international Islamist terrorist threat to the West has changed dramatically, but Western governments are still fighting the last war -- set up to fight an old al-Qaeda that is now largely contained. Unless we understand this sea change, we will not be able to ward off the new menace.

The version of al-Qaeda that Osama bin Laden founded is a fading force. After a week in which five detainees who allegedly planned the Sept. 11, 2001, atrocities were arraigned before a U.S. military tribunal at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, it's worth remembering that the terrorists behind 9/11 were mostly young, well-educated middle-class expatriates from Muslim countries who had become radicalized abroad, especially in the West. Such key 9/11 plotters as Mohamed Atta, Ramzi Binalshibh, Ziad Jarrah and Marwan al-Shehhi met and became radicalized as students in Hamburg, then went to Afghanistan looking for al-Qaeda. But over the past six years, most of the professional terrorists who fit this profile have been eliminated during the U.S.-led manhunt for "high-value targets." The few that remain are huddled in the Afghan-Pakistani border area, struggling to extend their reach beyond Pakistan.

That old guard is still dangerous and still plotting spectacular attacks. But it is the new wave that more urgently requires our attention. This cohort is composed of homegrown young wannabes who dream of glory and adventure, who yearn to belong to a heroic vanguard and to root their lives in a greater sense of meaning. Inspired by tales of past heroism, they hope to emulate their predecessors, even though, for the most part, they can no longer link up with al-Qaeda Central in the Pakistani badlands. Their potential numbers are so great that they must now be seen as the main terrorist threat to the West.

This threat is not well understood by U.S. policymakers. After 9/11, I realized that spectacular instances of collective violence such as terrorism and the Holocaust tend to be the product of small-group dynamics, not individual action. (As a former CIA case officer who ran programs in Afghanistan in the 1980s, I learned how hard it was to motivate groups to perform field operations.) I began putting together graphs and charts to see how friendships and kinship groups had shaped al-Qaeda's networks. I was able to recognize these concepts precisely because of my isolation from the U.S. government, which was focusing on old, top-down, command-and-control theories. And I worry again today that those charged with protecting us are not being imaginative or rigorous enough to understand the next generation of jihadists.

Unlike their pre-9/11 predecessors, today's would-be terrorists are usually the poorly educated teenage children of unskilled and secular Muslim immigrants. They have been born, raised and radicalized in their host countries (unlike, say, Atta, an Egyptian who recoiled at modern Germany). This new generation's youth culture celebrates a sort of "jihadist cool."

Consider the "Hofstad Netwerk" in the Netherlands, which I believe is typical of this new wave. It consists mostly of young people who were born in Holland or immigrated to that country very early in life. They met around their neighborhoods, in Internet cafes or in online chat rooms, then self-radicalized through their admiration for the supposed Islamist heroes fighting the West. One man linked to this cohort, Mohammed Bouyeri, repeatedly shot the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh in 2004 on an Amsterdam street. Other members of this informal network reportedly planned to murder prominent Dutch politicians and bomb the Dutch parliament, a nuclear power plant and Amsterdam's international airport.

Or consider another network that sprang up in placid surroundings: the group of second-generation immigrant men and youths in the Toronto suburbs who Canadian authorities allege plotted to set off truck bombs in Toronto, bomb the Canadian Parliament and kill Prime Minister Stephen Harper. They reportedly spent time praising their terrorist heroes on the Internet and living out mujaheddin fantasies by playing paintball games in rural Ontario.

What makes next-gen terrorists tick? How did these ordinary kids come to be so attracted to political violence? The process of radicalization consists of four prongs, which need not occur in sequence. Here's the recipe: having a sense of moral outrage; seeing this anger as part of a "war on Islam"; believing that this view is consistent with one's everyday grievances; and mobilizing through networks.

Many Muslims feel a powerful sense of moral outrage at the treatment of their coreligionists, be it the sight of U.S. troops killing Muslims in Iraq or the aftermath of police harassment of local mosques. To lead to political violence, a next-generation jihadist must come to believe one simple sound bite: that there is a "war against Islam."

Unlike their fanatical predecessors in the old al-Qaeda, the new terrorists are not particularly religious. The defendants in the Hofstad trials, the March 2004 Madrid bombing trial, the Toronto case and the many trials in Britain are not intellectuals, let alone Islamic scholars. Many became religious only a few months before their arrests, and some are not religious at all. The new generation is not likely to be swayed by abstract arguments. Young jihadist wannabes do not go to Iraq to have theological debates; they go there to blow themselves up.

The problem has been worse in Europe than in the United States. In the land of the American dream and the melting pot, a broader, more inclusive view of American-ness undermines the jihadist insistence that the U.S. government is at war with its Muslim citizens. Notwithstanding some ugly jeering by nativist bigots and some clumsy profiling by law enforcement, ordinary Muslim Americans simply do not feel some "war on Islam" in their daily experiences.

But things are far less cheerful in Europe. The children of unskilled Muslim immigrants there face discrimination across the continent, resulting in striking unemployment rates. Many non-Muslim Europeans resent having to compete with Muslim immigrants for low-level jobs and worry that poor immigrant suburbs mean higher crime rates. Anti-immigrant sentiment, which propelled far-right parties to win around 20 percent of the vote in contests in France, Austria and Switzerland in recent years, only reinforces the message of rejection -- and produces grist for the terrorists' mill.

There are many angry young Muslims in the world, of course. What transforms a tiny number of them into terrorists is mobilization by networks. Until a few years ago, these networks were made up of face-to-face groups: local gangs of young immigrants such as the Hofstad group or expatriate students such as the Hamburg cell that planned 9/11. These cliques of friends became radicalized together. The group acted as an echo chamber -- amplifying grievances, intensifying members' bonds to one another, deepening their rejection of the values of the host society and making it easier to gradually separate themselves from it.

Over the past two or three years, face-to-face radicalization has started to be replaced by online radicalization. People's beliefs used to be changed in small cliques; now they are being altered in jihadist Internet forums. These forums have become virtual marketplaces for extremist ideas -- the "invisible hand" organizing terrorist activities worldwide. They are transforming the terrorist movement, attracting ever younger members and women, who can now join in the discussions.

The West has successfully contained the terrorists who perpetrated 9/11. But al-Qaeda has adapted from the bottom up, producing a network that's scattered, disconnected and decentralized. The new jihadist movement doesn't have an operational leader, but it is every bit as dangerous as the old one.

Marc Sageman is a sociologist, forensic psychiatrist and scholar in residence at the New York Police Department. He is the author of "Understanding Terror Networks" and "Leaderless Jihad."

Tocqueville et Churchill à propos de l'islam

Alexis de Tocqueville:

I studied the Quran a great deal. I came away from that study with the conviction that by and large there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammad. So far as I can see, it is the principal cause of the decadence so visible today in the Muslim world and, though less absurd than the polytheism of old, its social and political tendencies are in my opinion more to be feared, and I therefore regard it as a form of decadence rather than a form of progress in relation to paganism itself.

Winston Churchill said as much in 1899, but with chilling significance for Europe today:

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.

Nojoud, 10 ans, divorcée au Yémen

Voici une belle illustration des pratiques humanistes des mahométans

Mariée de force en dessous de l'âge légal, abusée sexuellement et physiquement par son mari de vingt ans son aîné, Nojoud Ali est la première Yéménite à avoir osé défier, à l'âge de 10 ans, l'archaïsme des traditions de son pays, en demandant le divorce.

Dans les couloirs encombrés du tribunal de Sana'a, personne n'avait pris le temps de la remarquer. Cela faisait des heures que la frêle Nojoud Ali, drapée dans un voile noir, patientait, en priant pour qu'une oreille attentive puisse l'écouter. À midi, la foule se dissipa et un juge finit par s'étonner de ce petit bout de femme recroquevillé sur ce banc désormais vide. «Qu'est-ce que tu attends ?», lui demanda-t-il. «Mon divorce !», lui répondit-elle. À 10 ans, Nojoud fait partie de ces milliers de filles yéménites, mariées au plus jeune âge, selon de vieilles traditions tribales qui perdurent essentiellement en province. Mais, fait exceptionnel, c'est la première fois qu'une jeune mariée osa, ce 2 avril 2008, se rebeller contre les traditions en vigueur. Jusqu'à entamer un procès contre son mari, Faez Ali Thamer, trois fois plus âgé qu'elle. Et à le gagner avec brio, grâce à une mobilisation sans précédent de défenseurs des droits de l'homme et de journaux locaux. Une vraie première. «Au début, j'avais honte d'en parler», murmure la petite fille haute comme trois pommes qui a accepté de nous raconter le récit de ses mésaventures. Avant d'enchaîner, cette fois-ci sur un ton plein d'assurance qui dénote une étonnante maturité acquise au cours de son combat de deux mois : «Maintenant, je veux retourner à l'école et je veux étudier pour devenir avocate !»

C'est au domicile parental, dans le quartier de Dares, où elle a retrouvé ses frères et sœurs, qu'elle nous reçoit. Coincée dans une ruelle poussiéreuse, la maisonnette est composée de deux minuscules pièces sans ventilateur. Des coussins jetés à même le sol forment l'unique mobilier du salon. Un habitat vétuste, typique de l'installation de nombreux villageois venus tenter leur chance dans la capitale, Sana'a, pour n'y trouver que misère et pauvreté, comme Ali Mohammad al-Ahdel, le père de Nojoud. Actuellement au chômage, ce dernier, originaire d'un village de la province de Hajja, doit nourrir deux femmes et seize enfants. Des raisons qui expliquent, bien souvent, la fréquence des mariages précoces, en échange d'un petit pécule. «Quand Faez Ali Thamer, également originaire de Wadi La'a, est venu demander la main de Nojoud, j'ai tout de suite accepté pour pouvoir la protéger. Ma première fille a été kidnappée, je ne voulais pas qu'il lui arrive la même chose», se défend-il, en se réfugiant dans des lamentations douteuses. À ses côtés, Shoya, la mère de Nojoud, acquiesce d'un geste de la tête : «Il nous avait promis d'être respectueux.» Selon la loi en vigueur, l'âge du mariage est fixé à 15 ans pour les filles. Mais de nombreux parents dérogent à la règle en établissant un contrat de mariage stipulant que les relations sexuelles sont interdites jusqu'à ce que la jeune fille soit «prête». Or, ce contrat est rarement respecté.

Le soir des noces, c'est la fête pour Nojoud, qui ne réalise pas bien ce qui lui arrive. «On m'a offert trois robes pour mon mariage, deux jaunes et une marron. Elles étaient très jolies», se souvient-elle, en plissant ses yeux en forme d'amande. Cette fan des jeux de cache-cache qui aime le chocolat, comme la plupart des filles de son âge, n'avait qu'un seul rêve, à part celui d'avoir un jour la télévision : «Ressembler à une tortue, pour me glisser dans l'eau, car je ne suis jamais allée au bord de la mer.» Le mariage, elle ne savait pas trop bien ce que cela signifiait, à l'exception des cadeaux qui viennent avec et d'une maison toute neuve. Ce n'est qu'une fois arrivée au nouveau domicile conjugal, dans le village de Wadi La'a, qu'elle prend conscience de son calvaire. Après lui avoir indiqué sa chambre à coucher, son mari lui fait vite comprendre ses intentions. «Il a voulu qu'on dorme dans le même lit. J'ai refusé et il s'est mis à me courir après. Il a fini par m'attraper et par me faire des choses sales et désagréables», raconte-t-elle. Chaque soir, à la nuit tombée, le même scénario se reproduit : «Dès qu'il rentrait du travail, ça recommençait. Je pleurais en le suppliant de me laisser seule. Il me tapait avec un bâton. J'avais beau crier, personne ne pouvait m'entendre.»

Quelques semaines plus tard, elle se résigne, honteuse, à en parler à ses parents lors d'une visite à Sana'a. Mais ils font la sourde oreille. «Mes cousins m'auraient tué si je déshonorais la famille en demandant le divorce pour ma fille», nous dit le père, engoncé dans sa tunique blanche. Nojoud, elle, refuse de baisser les bras. À force de frapper à toutes les portes, elle finit par recueillir, le mois suivant, le conseil d'une de ses tantes. «Va au tribunal, c'est la seule solution !», lui lance-t-elle, en glissant quelques pièces dans le creux de sa main. Tout juste de quoi monter dans un bus des transports publics.

Dans ce bâtiment si impressionnant, Nojoud se sent perdue. Interpellé par le courage et la détresse de la petite fille, Mohammed al-Ghadhi, le juge, décide de l'héberger chez lui pendant trois jours, et de placer le père et le mari en détention provisoire. Mais la demande de divorce, unique en son genre, n'est pas facile à régler. «Selon les mœurs yéménites, où les règles tribales ont souvent la priorité sur la loi en vigueur, ce genre d'affaires est d'habitude étouffé», confie l'avocate Chadha Nasser, qui se porta volontaire pour défendre Nojoud. Cette spécialiste des droits de l'homme s'en remet alors à son intuition. Le jour du procès, elle convoque les associations féministes et la presse. Le sujet fait la une du quotidien Yemen Times. Sous la pression de l'opinion publique, le divorce est finalement prononcé. Un tabou est brisé. «Ce procès a enfoncé une porte fermée», se réjouit Chadha Nasser. Depuis, une petite dizaine d'autres filles ont osé entamer des procédures judiciaires contre leur mari. Nojoud, elle, prépare son retour à l'école. Elle a réintégré le foyer parental, mais bénéficie du soutien et de la protection de plusieurs associations, ainsi que de son avocate, sa «seconde mère», comme elle l'appelle. «Quand je serai grande, je veux défendre les gens opprimés. Comme Chadha !», dit-elle.

.

Le romancier anglais Ian McEwan méprise “l’islamisme”.

En Grande-Bretagne, même la critique de l’islamisme est devenu politiquement incorrecte. Les mêmes qui ont fait taire la critique de l’islam, sont passé à l’étape suivante : empêcher la critique de “l’islamisme” qui pourtant selon la définition de ceux-la même qui tiennent absolument à établir une différence entre islam et islamisme, est censé être la frange extrémiste de l’islam politique.

Le romancier anglais Ian McEwan, auteur de “Atonement” , nouvelle qui a été adaptée récemment pour le cinéma, a déclaré lors d’une interview au journal italien Corriere della Sera:

“Je méprise l’islamisme” en ajoutant “ils veulent créer une société que je déteste.”

Prenant la défense de son ami, l’écrivain Martins Amis, accusé de racisme et qui risque des poursuites pour avoir lui aussi dénoncé vigoureusement l’islamisme, Ian McEwan a déclaré:

“Dès qu’un écrivain exprime une opinion contre l’islamisme, immédiatement quelqu’un, appartenant à la gauche ,saute à pieds joints et fait valoir que c’est du racisme car la majorité des musulmans ont la peau brune.”

“je méprise l’islamisme, car il veut créer une société que je déteste, fondée sur la conviction religieuse, sur un texte, sur l’absence de liberté pour les femmes, l’intolérance à l’égard l’homosexualité et ainsi de suite - nous le savons bien. ”

Le journaliste qui interrogeait McEwan lui a fait remarquer qu’il existe également une ligne dure dans le christianisme, par exemple aux États-Unis. McEwan lui a répondu. ”je trouve cela tout aussi absurde. Je n’aime pas ces visions médiévales du monde selon lesquelles Dieu doit venir pour sauver les fidèles et damner les autres. Mais les chrétiens américains ne veulent tuer personne dans ma ville, c’est ça la différence.”

Martin Amis, son ami écrivain, est tombé sous le feu de la critique pour avoir dit :

“La communauté musulmane souffrira, jusqu’à ce qu’elle fasse le ménage dans sa maison”.

L’automate à ablutions, la machine à automatiser la corânerie.

Nous nous attachons à illustrer jour après jour l’aspect liberticide, criminogène, totalitaire, belliqueux, misogyne, homophobe, antisémite, anti-chrétien, anti-athée, anti-non-musulman, anti-paix, anti-amour et anti-tolérance de l’islam.
Mais l’islam, ce n’est pas seulement ce nazisme qui nous vient des sables. L’islam, c’est aussi toute une panoplie de règles plus absurdes et ridicules les unes que les autres, ce que nous appelons des corâneries. L’islam, c’est une formidable machine à abêtir les fidèles, et à nous faire rire à gorge déployée. C’est, pour reprendre les termes de Houellebecq, par excellence « la religion la plus con ».
Aussi voulons-nous vous faire partager notre découverte hilarante du jour, la machine à automatiser la corânerie : l’automate à ablutions, l’Auto Wudu Washer, commercialisée par AACE.
En islam, il y a cinq prières obligatoires par jour, observées à heure fixe et selon un rituel défini. Ce rituel commence avant la prière, avec les petites ablutions (wudhû), qui consistent à se laver à l’eau certaines parties du corps. Cette purification par l’eau s’effectue en sept étapes. Après avoir formulé intérieurement l’intention de se purifier, on procède de la sorte :

On se lave les mains jusqu’aux poignets : 3 fois
On se rince la bouche : 3 fois
On se lave le nez (ce qui se pratique en inspirant et expirant de l’eau) : 3 fois
On se lave le visage : 3 fois
On se lave de nouveau les mains, jusqu’aux coudes : 3 fois
On passe ses mains humides sur ses cheveux, puis les oreilles, une fois.
On se lave les pieds jusqu’aux chevilles : 3 fois
Ainsi purifié, le fidèle peut remplir son obligation. Seul ou aidé de la machine à ablutions. Le Auto Wudu Washer (AWW), c’est cette machine commercialisée dès 2006 par la société AACE.

Existant en deux modèles, la machine à ablution s’adresse d’une part aux établissements publics (hôtels, mosquées, bureaux, etc.), d’autre part aux particuliers. Tout a été conçu pour économiser l’eau et les capteurs infrarouges raviront les maniaques qui ont du mal avec les salles d’eau, pas toujours reluisantes…

Agression antisémite à Paris

Article du Figaro du 23/06/08

Quelque chose me dit que l'agresseur ne doit être ni anabaptiste, ni quaker, ni adventiste du septième jour ni bouddhiste, mais le Figaro, un journal devenu très islamiquement correct, fait preuve d'une exquise délicatesse et d'un grand respect pour la religion d'amour, de paix et de tolérance en ne prononçant pas le mot qui fâche.

Les heurts prennent parfois la tournure d'affrontements entre bandes, sur fond de clichés antisémites.

Le week-end, «c'est la guerre aux Buttes-Chaumont», résume Jonathan, jeune juif du XIXe. Comme un abcès de fixation. «Alors que les actes antisémites diminuent en France depuis 2007, le XIXe arrondissement de Paris reste un point noir», analyse Ariel Goldman, qui dirige le Service de protection de la communauté juive (SPCJ). Sur l'ensemble de la France, le SPCJ a recensé 121 actes entre janvier et mai 2007 et 106 cette année, dont de nombreuses menaces et 62 actions. Le XIXe est particulièrement touché.

Depuis un mois, le climat, déjà dégradé, a dégénéré. «La situation est alarmante. Il y a une tension intercommunautaire très forte, ce qui m'inquiète particulièrement», confirme le maire socialiste du XIXe arrondissement de Paris, Roger Madec, qui a réclamé dimanche le déploiement d'effectifs de police supplémentaires pour rétablir le calme.

Dans ces batailles rangées, il est parfois difficile de discerner agresseurs et agressés. Mi-juin, une course-poursuite avait donné lieu à des arrestations de jeunes juifs, «alors qu'ils étaient les victimes», assure Sammy Ghozlan, du Bureau de vigilance contre l'antisémitisme. «Ils se sentent obligés de se rassembler pour se protéger», avance encore ce responsable. Qui reconnaît cependant que certaines bandes de juifs veulent aussi en découdre. Ces heurts, auxquels s'ajoutent des agressions, ont réveillé l'inquiétude.

«Cela crée beaucoup d'anxiété chez les gens de la communauté juive, notamment chez les enfants», déplore le directeur du Crif, Haïm Musicant. D'autant que beaucoup de familles juives du XIXe s'y sont installées ces dernières années, attirées par les écoles confessionnelles et le réseau religieux. L'arrondissement compte maintenant près de 150 lieux de culte juifs. Certains y sont aussi venus pour fuir l'hostilité des banlieues où ils vivaient auparavant, notamment de la Seine-Saint-Denis toute proche. Aline a quitté La Courneuve en 2002 : «C'était devenu intenable.» Elle décide alors de s'installer rue Petit, pour retrouver «la sécurité et la communauté, à un prix raisonnable dans Paris». Mais, après quelques années de répit, ses filles sont à nouveau confrontées «à des regards hostiles, des insultes». La crainte de l'agression gratuite est revenue, dit-elle.

Délinquance crapuleuse

Les religieux, notamment les Loubavitchs, assurent cependant vivre en «bon voisinage» avec les cités sensibles, qui surplombent le triangle où se concentrent les foyers juifs. Mais le quotidien est émaillé d'incidents : «Les bandes descendent pour voler», affirme un commerçant. Dans le quartier, les familles juives font figure de privilégiés par rapport aux cités voisines.

Mais au-delà de cette délinquance crapuleuse, se profile l'antisémitisme le plus basique. Un «J'aime pas les juifs», qui transcende les origines et les religions, à en croire les policiers chargés des interpellations.

La cause palestinienne, maintes fois évoquée lors des attaques antisémites qui avaient resurgi fin 2000 en France, semble totalement oubliée… contrairement aux stéréotypes antijuifs.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali interpelle le gouvernement français : à la France de rappeler au reste de l’Europe les principes des Lumières.

Menacée de mort par des groupes islamistes pour ses prises de position critiques sur l’Islam, l’ex-députée néerlandaise d’origine somalienne Ayaan Hirsi Ali avait dû s’exiler en 2006 aux Etats-Unis.Depuis le 1er octobre, elle est confrontée au refus du gouvernement de La Haye de continuer à assurer sa protection à l’étranger. Une décision qui la rend à la fois démunie et vulnérable. Jointe par téléphone, Ayaan Hirsi Ali interpelle le gouvernement français : à la France de rappeler au reste de l’Europe les principes des Lumières.

Quelle est votre situation actuelle ?
Après un bref séjour en Hollande pour rencontrer les autorités, je suis revenue aux Etats-Unis et je me trouve actuellement dans une ville américaine où j’essaie d’organiser ma sécurité.
Quelle est la position des autorités néerlandaises vous concernant ?

Le gouvernement néerlandais s’était engagé à me protéger aussi longtemps que dureraient les menaces de mort. Mais quand j’ai décidé de partir aux Etats-Unis, il y a eu un revirement, les autorités m’indiquant que la protection promise n’était assurée qu’à l’intérieur des Pays-Bas. Les Américains ont pourtant expliqué qu’ils ne pouvaient prendre le relais : ils n’assurent que la sécurité des non-Américains dotés d’un statut officiel, pas celle d’une simple citoyenne. Le département d’Etat a donc recommandé au gouvernement des Pays-Bas d’engager une société de protection privée, leur assurant que le gouvernement américain les aiderait en matière de renseignement. Les Hollandais ont refusé, et j’ai reçu une lettre me prévenant qu’on mettait fin à ma protection le 1er octobre. Depuis, le premier ministre m’a demandé de repartir aux Etats-Unis et de trouver moi-même des fonds pour ma protection. Je viens donc de lancer une fondation pour laquelle je mendie actuellement de l’argent.

Salman Rushdie dit que vous êtes “la première réfugiée d’Europe occidentale depuis l’Holocauste”. Qu’en est-il ?
La Hollande veut bien me donner la liberté de parole, mais pas la liberté de mouvement. Alors que faire ? Courageusement, le Danemark offre de m’accueillir et de me protéger. Mais c’est aux Etats-Unis que je veux vivre aujourd’hui. Mon expression y sera plus libre et plus efficace. Car la vérité, c’est qu’il est devenu impossible de parler librement de l’islam sur le continent européen. L’état d’esprit actuel de l’élite implique d’éviter tout débat par peur d’offenser les musulmans, et conduit à satisfaire les exigences des islamistes, même s’il s’agit de faire taire les gens comme moi.

Ce sujet, l’islam, deviendrait une sorte de tabou ?
La critique de l’islam est un tabou inscrit au coeur même de la religion. Mais que les sociétés européennes, héritières des Lumières, s’imposent à elles-mêmes ce tabou, voilà qui est totalement nouveau. Et stupéfiant ! Le judaïsme, le bouddhisme, le communisme… Tout mouvement collectif ou théologique doit être ouvert aux critiques. Il n’y a que l’islam qui les refuse et qui, d’ailleurs, en soit exempté en Europe.

La décision du gouvernement hollandais résonne-t-elle comme un avertissement pour tous ceux qui, en Europe, souhaitent débattre de l’islam ?
Evidemment ! Mon cas fait passer la question de la liberté d’expression de la théorie à la pratique. Vous pouvez exprimer votre opinion, mais votre tête sera coupée. Si vous êtes musulman et que vous devenez un ex-musulman, si vous êtes une femme et que vous critiquez l’islam et son oppression, le prix à payer est la vie. Vivre dans une démocratie ne change rien à l’affaire. C’est un enjeu majeur pour nos pays, qu’aucun personnage politique d’envergure n’a encore osé prendre à bras-le-corps. Comme si ce n’était qu’un simple incident, alors que c’est rien de moins que la liberté d’expression qui se joue ! Il n’y a pas de loi pour protéger les gens comme moi dans nos pays, pas de fonds, pas de mouvement.

Il y a quand même déjà eu le cas de Salman Rushdie…
Mais son cas était lui aussi considéré comme isolé ! Personne ne réalise que nous sommes en fait le sommet de l’iceberg, qu’il y a sur le continent des tas de musulmans ou d’anciens musulmans menacés, bâillonnés, et que cette censure concerne tout le monde.

Pensez-vous que la France doive prendre position sur ce sujet ?
C’est à la France d’être à l’origine du sursaut, d’ouvrir le débat. A la France de prendre la tête d’un mouvement visant à faire comprendre à tous les Européens que, ce qui se joue, c’est leur socle de valeurs et de principes les plus fondamentaux. Qu’il est urgent de les protéger. Légalement, politiquement, voire financièrement. Cela dépasse largement mon cas particulier. Il s’agit d’une confrontation entre la religion et la raison. Et parce qu’elle a hérité à la fois des Lumières et du système de la laïcité, qu’elle a une histoire et un rayonnement particuliers, la France a un rôle à jouer. C’est le pays de Voltaire ! Le pays de celui qui a dit : je ne suis pas d’accord avec vos idées, mais je suis prêt à mourir pour que vous puissiez les exprimer. J’aime cette idée qu’il importe avant tout de protéger les idées avec lesquelles vous êtes en désaccord, pas seulement celles que vous approuvez !
Au soir de son élection, le président Sarkozy disait “à tous ceux dans le monde qui croient aux valeurs de tolérance, de démocratie et d’humanisme”, que la France serait “à leurs côtés, qu’ils peuvent compter sur elle”…

Eh bien, qu’il commence maintenant ! Il peut expliquer aux politiciens néerlandais à quel point ils ont envoyé un message déplorable en contentant les ennemis de la liberté d’expression. Cela me rappelle l’incroyable capitulation des médias et des hommes politiques au moment des dessins de Mahomet publiés au Danemark. Car ne soyons pas naïfs : si les islamistes parviennent à réduire au silence un individu, voire un pays, ils ne s’arrêteront pas là. Et ils passeront au suivant, puis au suivant, puis au suivant…