Sunday, January 31, 2010

new from

new from

Islam's Relentless Encroachment in Malaysia

Posted: 30 Jan 2010 03:17 PM PST

MANY OF US forget that when we fight for freedom, when we speak up about Islam, even when when we initiate legislation for our own country, we are giving hope to millions around the world who live in countries already too far gone, where it is almost impossible to do anything about Islam's relentless encroachment because Islam has wormed its way into the government and started making laws intended to protect Islam and diminish or eliminate all competing ways of life.

We received the following message from a woman named Jasmine who has written to us before:

Thank you Citizen Warrior. I'm from Malaysia (click on the map above to see a larger image), a Muslim majority country. Population is: 60 to 65% Malays, 20 to 25% Chinese and Indians about 10 to 15%.

All Malays MUST be Muslims. No freedom of choice for the Malays on religion; a sizeable proportion of the Indians are Muslims and some Chinese are Muslims.

If a non-muslim (usually a Chinese or Indian) wanted to marry a Malay, he/she has to be converted to the Islamic faith.

Our constitution says we have religious freedom. But slowly, the majority is pushing for
Shari'a law. Recently, the government forbade the use of "Allah" in the Malay language, citing all Malays are Muslims and the use of "Allah" will confuse the Muslims.

BUT in East Malaysia, (Sabah & Sarawak States), the indigeneous people speak the Malay language. These Malay-speaking indigenous people are mostly Christians. Therefore when the Malay-speaking indigeneous people worship, the word "Allah" is used. They also use the Malay version of the Bible.

The court actually ruled that "Allah" can be used in the Malay language in translating or worshiping. There is mayhem, churches were attacked with one badly burnt on the ground floor. If you want more news from Malaysia, link to this site:


Jasmine (I have changed her name at her request) also sent me this article: Malaysia and the Myth of Islamic Tolerance.

Sometimes when I read about how Islam works, how they
gain power by gaining concessions until they have enough power to begin establishing laws, it all seems abstract or distant until I hear from someone to whom it is happening right now, and it makes it all too real.

In our quest to stop the third jihad, we need to be effective. The Islamic supremacists are not messing around. They are actively trying to influence governments all over the world to become more Islamic, and they are
succeeding in Malaysia and many other places, including Egypt.

We must stop their encroachment. How? What can you do? I love that question! There are a lot of effective things you can do. Join ACT for America, get others to join, sign up for their newsletter, and sign up to give them a monthly contribution. Also, talk to people about Islam. Teach them what you know. And if you don't know much about Islam or if you don't know much about influencing people, tell people about the Girl Effect.

For many more ideas about how to defeat
the third jihad, read What Can a Civilian Do?

Let's get it done.

Phyllis, we had come such a long way,,

The Phyllis Chesler Organization

The Steady Erosion of Women's Rights in Egypt: A Photographic Story

by Phyllis Chesler

Pajamas Media

January 28, 2010

Send Comment RSSShare: Digg


These photos, sent by my good friend Tareq Heggy, speak volumes about the politicization of the Islamic Veil. In the 1950s, Cairo University graduates were not veiled. By the twenty first century, the veiling of educated women was fully underway.

Read the complete original version of this item...

Related Topics: Islamic Gender and Religious Apartheid

To subscribe to the Phyllis Chesler mailing list, go to

The Phyllis Chesler Organization

The Latest from National Terror Alert Response Center

The Latest from National Terror Alert Response Center

Link to Homeland Security News

Al Qaeda Man Captured Wearing Bomb Belt

Posted: 30 Jan 2010 09:50 PM PST

Yemeni forces on Saturday captured an al Qaeda militant wearing an explosive belt who was planning a suicide attack on “economic facilities,” a government official said.
The man was detained while driving a motorbike in the Khalf area in the Hadramaut region, the Ministry of Interior official said in a statement sent to Reuters. He was [...]

This story comes to us via Homeland
- National Terror Alert. National Terror Alert is America's trusted
source for
homeland security news
and information.

Al Qaeda Man Captured Wearing Bomb Belt

from NY to Israel Sultan Reveals The Stories Behind the News

from NY to Israel Sultan Reveals The Stories Behind the News

Link to Sultan Knish

Two Models for the Encounter Between Islam and the West

Posted: 30 Jan 2010 07:10 PM PST

There are essentially two models for the current encounter between Islam and the West. The Clash of Civilizations, the first model is held by a narrow slice of the population in First World countries, and an even smaller slice within the political and academic world. This model holds that we are experiencing a clash of civilizations between Islam and the West. A clash of civilizations resulting from the desire of Muslims to create a global civilization based on their religion and culture, by displacing all competing civilizations, primarily (but not limited to) Western Civilization.

The second model is the Assimilationist Model, this model is the most widely held one, not only on the left, but among many on the right as well. The Assimilationist Model holds that the tensions between Muslims and the West, both in the West and in the Muslim world, are the product of the incomplete assimilation of both sides into a global society.

Under the Assimilationist Model, clashes in Europe or terrorism in America result from a failure by their host countries to properly assimilate Muslims within their borders. This "failure to assimilate" results primarily from Western racism, ignorance about Islam, and disrespect for Muslim values, leading to economic and social injustice. This economic and social injustice is then said to marginalize Muslim moderate leaders, who are more prepared to assimilate into their host society, and strengthens Muslim extremists.

On a global scale, violence from the Muslim world is said to be produced by the failure of First World countries to respect and adapt to Muslim culture and religion, as well as the left's old standbys of racism, and economic and social injustice. With the same results as on local level. Muslim extremists are strengthened, Muslim moderates are weakened, and stuff blows up all because we didn't spend enough time learning about other cultures.

Both locally and globally, the Assimilationist Model's prescription for curing terrorist ills is the same. For the affected countries to learn about the values of their attackers and strive to accommodate them. To provide financial benefits and various forms of affirmative action to neutralize Islamic grievances and show respect by promoting and normalizing Islam, both locally and globally. This will harmonize Muslims and non-Muslims together within the emerging global society. And then everyone can join hands and live peacefully together under the enlightened rule of a vast global bureaucracy.

While the Assimilationist Model emerged out of attempts by First World countries to actually assimilate Muslims, in its present state it is essentially a prescription for what is at best mutual assimilation, and what is at worst, a Muslim takeover. And what is worse, the Assimilationist Model is the dominant model used by politicians, academics, business leaders and the political and intellectual elite of almost every society currently targeted by Islam.

And there is a reason for that. Where the Clash of Civilizations model presents a global showdown in which not only is there no avoiding a global conflict, but that conflict will also disrupt emerging trade, international cooperation and global governance mechanisms-- the Assimilationist Model is an essentially optimistic one that says that if we all "buckle down" and make some cultural sacrifices, censor our cartoons, pay fealty to the cultural importance of Mosque and Koran, and avoid eating in public around Ramadan time, in exchange we'll benefit from from globalism abroad and multiculturalism at home (read as a dirt cheap workforce that can help fund our already bankrupt socialist systems). It's no wonder that the Assimilationist Model is so popular among the ruling elite, since it assumes that with a little cultural tinkering, everyone can be made happy. Even if it's under Sharia law. The details don't really matter to them, only the big picture does.

The different viewpoints inherent in these two models, the Clash of Civilizations and the Assimilationist Model underlie virtually all of the debate going on about Islam and the West. And what is so insidious about the Assimilationist Model is that it represents the "easy shortcut" in which societies begin trying to win over Muslims, and by the time they realize it isn't working they see no other alternative short of civil war for dealing with the problem, and this only reinforces their commitment to the Assimilationist Model as the only remaining option.

It is easy to understand why the Assimilationist Model is so dominant, given two choices, most people will choose the "easy way" out. Most people will also try to choose the nicer one, in order to feel better about themselves. The Assimilationist Model offers a minimum of sacrifice up front. There's no need to fight wars or contemplate international alliances against a rising evil. All you really have to do is run some ads, meet with some Muslim leaders, address their concerns and you're done for the day. It seems easy and at first it is. But then the demands get worse and worse, and even when you address them the violence increase. And you're caught inside the trap, and the only way to get out is chew your own leg off, on a national scale. But how many modern leaders are prepared to do that? And so they keep repeating the same futile gestures, putting more and more on the table, in the hopes that at some point the Assimilationist Model will kick in and their society will be saved. Of course the only thing that finally kicks in, is Sharia law and another addition to the Ummah, once the tipping point has been reached.

The difference between the Assimilationist Model and the Clash of Civilizations is the difference between a slot machine that asks for a quarter and a training course in electrical engineering that asks for ten thousand dollars. The first seems tempting, because it asks for very little up front and offers a huge reward. While the other asks for a lot up front and doesn't offer nearly as much down the road, and requires a lot of hard work. And much of the West's political leadership is no longer geared up for sacrifices and hard work, but for socialist bread and circuses, and the Assimilationist Model fits nicely into that mold.

But the intellectual failure of the Assimilationist Model goes even further back, because it's really the model that the West adopted for use against Communist and other far left wing workers' movements, which focused on depriving them of their base by improving conditions for workers. Since then the First World has adapted that same model for use in pacifying virtually any form of dangerous social discontent. But there's a basic disconnect between applying a model meant to deal with an ideological threat to a religious and cultural war. Because while Islam functions at the ideological level, its primary appeal functions at a cultural, national and religious level.

Islam is not simply a manifestation of discontent due to economic or social barriers, but the Manifest Destiny of Muslims in building a global Caliphate. It cannot be waved away with aid money, affirmative action or even showing respect for Islam. The Assimilationist Model is based on the fallacy that Islamism can be neutralized by coddling Muslims. It is profoundly and deeply wrong in this regard, because it fails to understand the power and appeal of Islam. But the fault lies in the left which following its Marxist model of class warfare has coded every social movement as coming in response to economic inequality. And the level of acceptance for the Assimilationist Model demonstrates the level of penetration by the basic ideas behind Marxism... even when those ideas were used to counter the rise of Marxist groups.

The left's intellectual dominance in the First World has wedded its political elite to a worldview in which local and global conflicts can be reduced to either greed on the part of developed nations and groups, or outrage against economic inequality by undeveloped nations and groups. The latter half of the 20th century has overlain those ideas with dollops of tolerance and respect, but the underlying idea remains the same. That you resolve a conflict by divide the Haves from the Have Nots, and assuming the latter can be appeased by remedying the wrongs done to them by the Haves.

The "Have and the Have Not" formula so vital to the Marxist worldview is so thorough embedded that it cannot envision actual Islamist motives as anything except as an insanity that can be pacified by weaning away their followers with economic, social and cultural incentives, or the inventions of intolerant conservative elements within their own society who are seeking to disrupt their attempt at national and global harmony.

This is why the Assimilationist Model has become a fact of life, whether it's in Europe, where governments seek to charm Muslims by showing them respect, or America, where the government is planning to spend billions to lure away Taliban fighters from their machine guns, to Israel, where the endless peace process continues dangling a limited state before terrorists who remain committed to destroying their country.

Because it is easy, because it accommodates the facile worldview of the left and provides minimum disruption to their plans for a global order-- the Assimilationist Model remains very hard to shake. Its optimism and humanism makes it seem morally indefensible to its followers. But its fatal flaw, like that of all utopian delusions, is that it is completely unreal.

The core meaning of utopia is a place that cannot exist. The Assimilationist Model too posits a mythical place brought to life by the ideological will and intellectual laziness of a civilization at war, but refusing to acknowledge it. The rate of global Muslim violence has been steadily increasing, and while the proponents of the Assimilationist Model will always defend it by finding new sources to blame for growing Muslim outrage, almost as quickly as Osama bin Laden's videotaped ghost does (US Troops in Saudi Arabia, Israel, Global Warming, Western Culture, the WTO), this sort of intellectual sloppiness cannot even begin to explain why Muslim violence is not limited to the West, why it is not limited to developed countries, why in fact its only distinctive characteristic is the Muslim violence itself.

The Clash of Civilizations remains the only rational explanation and prescription for action. But it is also a difficult one, both practically and morally for many people to accept. But understanding the other side, requires understanding the flaws of the Assimilationist Model. For it is by understanding the nature of another's delusion, that we can begin to show them the truth.

Model Middle East Indoctrination

Campus Watch

Model Middle East Indoctrination

by Stephen Schwartz

American Thinker

January 31, 2010

Send RSS

Most Americans, even many of those concerned with the problems of academic Middle East Studies, have probably never heard of the Model Arab League (MAL), an American exercise similar to the better-known Model United Nations. The stated aim of such efforts is to expand awareness of world affairs among high school and college students. Participants compete in regional role-playing sessions as representatives of constituent countries in the corresponding world bodies and receive awards for their performance. They are then sent to contend at "nationals" held in Washington, D.C. and similar to matches sponsored by many other student societies and sports associations.

But the Model Arab League could be described better as a propaganda network for Arab nationalism, including promotion of the Arab states' hostile postures toward Israel, than as a contributor to excellence in international studies or debate.

The Model Arab League was created in 1983 at Georgetown University by the National Council on U.S.-Arab Relations (NCUSAR), which came into existence that same year, and the website of which prominently features MAL activities. NCUSAR's president and chief executive officer is an indefatigable Saudi apologist named John Duke Anthony. In May 2009, Anthony was appointed by the Obama administration to the U.S. State Department's Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy. He has been an adjunct professor at the Georgetown Center for Contemporary Arab Studies (CCAS) since 2006.

Saudi prince Turki al-Faisal, the former head of the Saudi General Intelligence Directorate who served briefly as Saudi ambassador to the U.S. in 2005-06, joined Anthony at CCAS in fall 2008. Al-Faisal has admitted dealing with Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, allegedly in the 1980s during the anti-Soviet resistance war, and in the 1990s with Mullah Omar, leader of the Taliban.

The original Arab League, known formally as the League of Arab States, was conceived in 1944 and comprises 22 Arab and African nations, including the Palestinian Authority (P.A.). The following year, the League promulgated a pan-Arab boycott on the purchase of products from "Zionist" enterprises in Palestine. This was followed by a full embargo against commercial relations with Israel after the latter proclaimed its independence in 1948. The League has extended the embargo to a secondary ban on any individual, enterprise, or agency operating in any of the Arab League member countries that does business in Israel. Individuals, companies, or public institutions maintaining relations with Israelis are placed on the League's boycott blacklist. A tertiary boycott prohibits dealings with companies from America and elsewhere that have been blacklisted.

Yet the anti-Israel embargo is not the only topic on which the Arab League finds itself in conflict with U.S. policies and laws. In late 2009, Secretary-General Moussa held a joint press conference in Cairo with Iranian parliamentary speaker Ali Larijani at which Moussa announced the League's support for Iran's nuclear program.

Back in America, the Model Arab League will hold its college "nationals" at Georgetown in March. High school "regionals" are pending, with local sessions at Marist High School in Atlanta later this month and in Boston, where students will meet at Northeastern University in April. Separate high school "nationals" will take place at Georgetown on April 16-17.

College-level MALs are held at 10 campuses around the U.S. These include, aside from Georgetown: Converse College in Spartanburg, South Carolina; Texas A&M, Miami University of Ohio; the University of San Francisco; the University of Montana-Missoula; and several others.

Students and faculty at Montana-Missoula got a taste of who and what the NCUSAR, the MAL, and John Duke Anthony represent when the latter keynoted a seminar on "New Avenues for U.S. Middle East Policy" on March 4, 2009 at the University of Montana's Maureen and Mike Mansfield Center's Defense Critical Language/Culture Program. Anthony called on the Obama administration to begin a dialogue immediately with the Palestinian terrorist movement Hamas and otherwise spent his time on the Montana campus, according to student sources, assailing Israel as the sole perpetrator of problems in the Middle East.

While U.S. policy condemns the Arab League embargo against Israel and questions the goals of Iranian nuclear development, the Model Arab League indoctrinates American high school and college students into a radical Arab-Muslim paradigm. This is unsurprising in that the MAL is a creation of Anthony, one of Washington's veteran servants of the Saudis, and has its focus at Georgetown, already well-known for its Saudi endowments, including the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, financed by a $20-million donation from the Saudi prince after whom it is named.

Anyone who doubts the orientation of the Model Arab League events need only examine the agenda for debate at its "nationals." "Simulated" bodies include:

  • A "Joint Defense Council" discussing "protection of civilians in occupied territories" and "scrutinizing the role of foreign military assistance or presence in meeting regional security concerns, as both protection to territorial integrity and threat to national security." The latter obviously denotes the presumptive security of the Arab League members, not the U.S.

  • A "Council on Palestinian Affairs" that would take up improvement of relations between the PA and Hamas as its first point, to wit:

1. Fostering dialogue and reconciliation between the Palestinian Authority and other Palestinian factions with the goal of strengthening the Palestinian state and legitimizing domestic political processes;

2. Developing an Arab League response mechanism to incursions into Palestinian territory, violations of Palestinian human rights, and destruction of Palestinian lives and property;

3. Assuring the flow to and from the West Bank and Gaza of capital goods, financial investment, and export products to foster economic development, protect territorial integrity, and establish Palestinian economic independence[.]

  • A "Council of Arab Economic Affairs Ministers" that would assess "the role of Islamic Finance," a highly controversial concept developed by Islamist radicals and repudiated by moderates. Presumably, in preparation for both high school and college events, American students are instructed in "Islamic finance."

  • Three "Councils of Ministers" dedicated to "Arab social affairs," "political affairs," and "Arab environmental affairs," plus a "Special Committee on Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons," and a fascinating "Arab Court of Justice" simulation for which no topics are listed. Would this be a model Shariah court involving U.S. high school and college students? Will students get a full dose of Saudi Wahhabi doctrines in Islamic finance and Shariah law, both of which are among the most retrograde interpretations in the Muslim world?

The Model Arab League is offered to the educational establishment -- including high schools -- as a teaching device for the betterment of young Americans' knowledge of essential contemporary issues. In reality, its origins and content reveal it to be an intrusion of Saudi-financed ideology into American academic life, the appropriateness of which should be questioned, notwithstanding the limitation of its presence to fairly obscure institutions. In addition, the appointment of John Duke Anthony to an advisory economic position in the State Department, given his advocacy for Saudi interests (which do not coincide with U.S. economic needs) should be subject to public scrutiny.

Stephen Schwartz is executive director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism. He wrote this article for Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum.

This text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL.

Related Items

To subscribe to the CW list, go to

Campus Watch