The recent sexual assault in Cologne of women on New Year’s Eve has shocked the nation. As many as 1000 men, allegedly set upon women and made them run a gauntlet as they were grabbed, their clothes ripped, and their bodies groped. Police sources and witnesses have said that many were refugees — triggering renewed objections over a spate of rapes and assaults of women in the country attributed to recent immigrants. To make matters worse for the government, newspapers are reporting that one man told police “I am Syrian. You have to treat me kindly. Mrs Merkel invited me.” The result has been a rising tide of criticism of Merkel for her open-door policy. Yet, that criticism may now be muted by a move by the government to crackdown on anti-immigration comments as a form of “hate speech.” As we discussed today with the effort to ban Donald Trump, free speech is being rolled back in Europe under hate crime and anti-discrimination laws as an alarming rate. It is particularly worrisome when the government is under attack on an issue like immigration and responds by prosecuting people for such criticism. News reports indicate that 18 of the 31 known suspects from Cologne were asylum seekers, including “nine Algerians, eight Moroccans, five Iranians, four Syrians, an Iraqi, a Serbian, an American and two German nationals.
We have previously discussed the alarming rollback on free speech rights in the West, particularly in France (here and here and here and here and here and here) and England ( here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here). Much of this trend is tied to the expansion of hate speech and non-discrimination laws. We have seen comedians targeted with such court orders under this expanding and worrisome trend. (here and here).
Prosecutors are charging people who are “inciting hatred” in Germany by speaking out against immigrants and their impact on German society. Prosecutors and judges are determining what criticism will be allowed and what will be treated as criminal. In the meantime, the government has reached a deal with Facebook, Google and Twitter to crackdown on Internet speech. It is an effort to create the artificial appearance of agreement and tolerance by denying free speech to critics.
While it is still not clear how many of the Cologne attackers were immigrants (as many as 22 have been identified as refugees), the incident has been a flashpoint as numerous stories of women and girls being harassed about their clothing or assaulted by immigrants. For example, a 26-year-old Berlin man’s home was raided by police, who confiscated his computer and phones after he had posted the image of a dead 3-year-old Syrian boy on a Turkish beach and wrote “We are not mourning, we are celebrating!” A disgusting comment and one that is worthy public condemnation. However, it is also an act of free speech.
Nevertheless, many citizens are celebrating the denial of their own free speech rights. So long as they disagree with the speakers, there appears little concern over the rising tide of censorship and criminalization of speech. People are now unsure what they can say about immigration, which is precisely the chilling effect that governments seek in such measure. The result is a forced silence . . . which is golden for governments like Merkel’s that do not like what they are hearing.
Ken Rogers “In the meantime, it’s a little silly to urge people to wake up to a danger that you can’t even tell them the nature of.”
I take it you didn’t even read the article I linked to and if you read it and it didn’t help then I guess in you’re case you’re right, I can’t even tell you the nature of what you need to wake up to. The funny thing is, those who are awake know PRECISELY what I’m talking about and share my immense frustration with trying to convey it to others. Either you get it or you don’t. Either your interest is piqued and you go off and do your own research into what I’ve been pointing to or you don’t. It seems instead of looking where I’m pointing you’re fixed on the finger doing the pointing. It’s okay though. I know when to throw in the towel.
Hildegard
1, January 16, 2016 at 4:36 pm
“The ‘IT’ I’m talking about cannot be condensed into one link or a sound bite. You seem to want a predigested or Readers Digest version. Sorry about that. I tried….”
All I want from you, and what you seem unable to provide, is a brief, coherent description of what it is that you want people to “wake up to.”
It’s become increasingly apparent that you’re either unable or unwilling to do the thinking required to articulate in a coherent description your inchoate impressions that something terribly evil is going on in the world, perpetrated by some cabal of evildoers with an “agenda” that you’re also unable to specify in words.
Perhaps given enough time, something concrete will come into focus for you and you’ll be able to transmute your feelings into thoughts that you can share regarding what it is that you’re trying to warn everyone about.
In the meantime, it’s a little silly to urge people to wake up to a danger that you can’t even tell them the nature of.
Darren Smith……you should consider modifying the filter on this site to a micro fine strainer, that may be able to limit the volume of nonsense from Conspiracy City Central and the evasive Tolkoy wannabe who is evidently being paid by the word.
The comments section here used to be mostly worthwhile…..it’s largely be turned into a farce by mostly the same group of loons with nothing better to do.
Ken, here is the link to the article I was trying to pot, re ISIS as proxy force…interestingly, the author assigns them to the US
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article43957.htm
Dareen, I am unable to post a comment, tried 3 times. There was no link in it, nor any bad word.
I think Hilde contaminated me 🙂
@bam bam
1, January 16, 2016 at 5:42 pm
“Defending Against Dhimmitude In France”
We should also be concerned about “dimmitude,” the stupefied attitude induced by virulent hatred of Muslims, as Muslims, whether in France or anywhere else.
are we done yet, bamie, or do you have more?
I’ll keep knocking them out of the park you keep underthrowing them 🙂
Defending Against Dhimmitude In France
French mayor denounces Muslim offer to protect church at Christmas.
January 4, 2016
Stephen Brown
The mayor of the southern French city of Beziers is facing heavy criticism and accusations of racism after sharply denouncing a Muslim group’s offer to protect a church during a Christmas midnight mass.
R obert Menard, elected mayor of Beziers’ 72,000 inhabitants in 2014 with the support of France’s nationalist party, Front National, didn’t pull any punches when condemning the Muslim initiative. Responding on the city’s website on December 26 in an entry titled “Muslim Guard: What Is the State Doing?” he wrote:
“A Muslim guard ‘protecting’ a Catholic church. Against whom? Hordes of Buddhist monks? Siberian shamans? Who are they mocking here? And where is this country going? Since when do the arsonists protect against fires?”
Menard, the former head of the respected ‘Reporters Without Borders’ organization, later pointed out that the proposal was simply a “foretaste of the Lebanisation of France” and that the Muslim group making the offer is led by “two activists known for their fundamentalist and anti-Israeli stances.” Menard stated the Muslim group made the same offer at the city’s 13th-century cathedral, adding he will inform police about this ‘Muslim guard’.
As expected, besides Muslims, France’s liberals and leftists were highly indignant, to say the least, that Menard had compared Muslims to arsonists. One group, SOS Racisme, said it will launch a complaint, calling Menard’s choice of words “insulting,” and accused him of wanting “to whip up hatred against Muslims.”
France’s interior minister, Bernard Cazeneuve, a member of the ruling Socialist Party that relies on the Muslim vote at election time, also entered the fray. On Twitter, the minister expressed his “respect for the Muslims who protected the churches at Christmas.”
One such church in Lens was reported to have “particularly appreciated” the Muslim presence. At the end of the mass, the priest invited the Muslims to come to the altar in order to hand them “the light of Bethlehem, the symbol of peace,” while the congregation applauded (see video here).
It’s too bad the priest didn’t ask them to also spread this message of peace among their Muslim co-religionists in present-day Bethlehem where Christians are persecuted.
Menard is no stranger to controversy. For example, after his fifth victory in court against France’s main human rights organization, the League of the Rights of Man (LRM), he had a photo published in the Bezier journal of a man spanking a woman, taken from the 1924 movie Girl Shy. Menard titled it: “Judicial Spanking: The LRM is visibly acquiring a taste here.” Underneath was written: Mayor of Beziers 5, LRM 0.
Naturally, Menard’s tongue-in-cheek choice of photos produced leftist outrage and accusations from French feminists that he was inciting violence against women.
This, and other politically incorrect actions by Menard, have angered France’s ‘bien-pensants’ (good-thinkers) to the point where socialist deputies in France’s National Assembly called last September for his removal from office. But after calling his socialist critics “completely stupid,” Menard stated: “It is time they understand that democracy is not reserved only for their friends.”
Menard believes the Muslim group approached the Beziers church at Christmas not because it wanted to help prevent Islamic terrorist attacks, like the ones that left 148 dead in France in 2015, but rather because of his own security initiative that would see an unarmed, but uniformed, volunteer force of citizens assist police. It would patrol streets and stand watch at buildings, connected to police headquarters by walkie-talkies.
City council had approved the creation of Menard’s ‘garde biterroise’, as it is called, shortly before Christmas. This new, volunteer force, Menard said, will remain in existence as long as France is under a state of emergency, declared after the November 13 Paris terrorist attack.
But a more sinister motive can be detected behind the seemingly “brotherly” Muslim offer to protect churches than simply a political manoeuvre to counter to Menard’s security initiative. First, some interpret as a provocation the fact that Muslim fundamentalists would pose as protectors of churches, especially on French soil, after the terrorism France experienced this past year.
Even more disturbing, by accepting the Muslim offer, France’s churches would simply be descending another step downwards towards their dhimmitude and that of their country. They would eventually resemble churches in Muslim countries that have to pay the special tax, the ‘jizya’, in order to survive (Even then, these churches still suffer attacks and burnings). One parish in a Danish city already pays Muslims to guard their church and cars during services, and even the parishioners themselves, against attacks by Muslim thugs.
The ‘garde musulmane’ concept is also socially divisive and therefore damaging. Especially after the 2015 terrorist carnage, such offers of protection would only serve to divide the two religious communities even more. Some could regard a Muslim protective force as offensive, since it infers Christians are too weak to protect themselves.
It is also unlikely that the sight of Muslim “protectors” would reassure all church-goers, possibly even scaring some. After all, which faith community is more likely to produce killers armed with kalashnikovs? And possibly use a security force as camouflage for a church attack? Besides, would Muslims like to see groups of Christians standing guard outside their mosques?
Rather than providing ‘protection’ to churches, it would serve community and inter-religious relations in France much better if French Muslims and their leftist allies, like SOS Racisme, would condemn and demonstrate massively against Christian persecution and attacks on churches in Muslim countries as well as against the murderous terrorist attacks in France. Such actions would definitely help people accept as sincere Muslim attempts to improve relations between the two communities.
In addition, instead of standing in front of churches, it would be time better spent if Muslim ‘protectors’ demonstrated in front of radical French mosques and Salafist prayer rooms where terrorists are produced. They could also constantly check to discover whether radicals are infiltrating other mosques, and identify and demand that dangerous, hate-spewing imams be deported.
The Muslim offer to protect churches does, however, serve one good purpose: It shows how bad the situation really is. French churches are in such danger of jihadi attacks that even Muslims believe they now need protection. The fact that Cazaneuve lauded Muslim ‘protectors’ indicates that he also believes churches are facing a threat.
Even more ominous, Cazaneuve’s tweet shows that the government, which should be the sole body responsible for state security, including that of churches, has abdicated that responsibility. Instead, he prefers to show respect to Muslim ‘protectors’ for what his government should itself be doing. Both the Catholic faithful and Muslim fundamentalists could interpret his actions as signs of state weakness.
But what can one expect from a government whose socialist prime minister, Manuel Valls, told graduating high school students earlier this year that they “will have to get used to living with the threat of terrorist attacks for a long period of time.” Which constitutes an admission of failure, even of defeat.
Facing such a state security failure, more French towns and cities should follow Menard’s lead and set up their own auxiliary security forces. Their inhabitants, of all religious faiths, could only appreciate more security after the horrific events of 2015. And thanks to Menard’s security initiative, for Beziers, the scoreboard should now read: Citizens 6, Socialist Incompetents 0.
Damned if you …damned if you don’t… at least the Church goers appreciated it 🙂 h t t p://w w w dot huffingtonpost dot com/2013/10/08/muslims-form-human-chain-pakistan_n_4057381.html
JERUSALEM — Every Christian knows the holiest places in Christendom are in Jerusalem. The holiest of all, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, was erected in 325, over the site where it is believed Jesus was crucified, buried and rose from the dead.
Yet, few know that it is a Muslim who opens and closes the only door to this holiest of Christian sites.
In fact, it’s two Muslims: one man from the Joudeh family and another man from the Nuseibeh family, two Jerusalem Palestinian clans who have been the custodians of the entrance to the Holy Sepulchre since the 12th century.http://www.ibtimes.com/who-guards-most-sacred-site-christendom-two-muslims-1161517
SOME SURPRISING AND HOPEFUL SIGNS: MUSLIMS DEFEND JEWS, JEWS DEFEND MUSLIMs
They seem as unlikely as flowers growing among the rubble of a barren, burned-out war zone.
Groups of Muslims protecting Jews, Christians protecting Muslims, Jews protecting Muslims, Muslims protecting Christians. People of one religion forming a protective barrier around people of another religion—who happen to be a traditional enemy.
Sometimes they form human chains in symbolic demonstrations. Other times, they provide real protection in highly dangerous areas.
Events involving great numbers of people get the most publicity, but there are many more acts on a smaller scale by people who are no less courageous. Our report—which is by no means comprehensive—is meant to be a reminder that humanity can bloom where you least expect it.
Warm Feelings on a Cold Night in Norway
On February 21, Reuters reported that more than 1,000 Muslims formed a symbolic human shield around a synagogue in Norway, chanting “No to anti-Semitism, no to Islamophobia.” A group of young Muslims had organized the demonstration, which took place in subzero weather, in response to the recent killing of two people at a synagogue in neighboring Denmark. It was an inspiring spectacle.
Who could not be pleased or inspired by such a thing? The American Hard Right, that’s who. From Breitbart.com: whowhatwhydotorg/2015/03/15/some-surprising-and-hopeful-signs-muslims-defend-jews-jews-defend-muslims/
A 17-year-old Muslim teen has rallied hundreds of young Muslims in Oslo who say they plan to protect Jews as they pray on Sabbath in synagogue this Saturday. The group says they’ll form a “peace ring” around the Jewish house of worship in the Norwegian capital.
Hajrad Arshad told state broadcaster NRK she initially called for 30 volunteers. Instead, at least 630 have risen to the challenge. She and her six co-organizers are part of a Facebook discussion forum called URETT AVSLØRES, “Injustice Revealed.”
The group intends to “extinguish the prejudices people have against Jews and against Muslims,” the young activist said. “We think that after the terrorist attacks in Copenhagen, it is the perfect time for us Muslims to distance ourselves from the harassment of Jews that is happening.”
Oslo Jewish community spokesperson Ervin Kohn welcomed the initiative, welcomed the initiative, pointing out the group was willing to defend the city’s Jews with their own bodies. “What they are showing is that if anyone wants to do anything against Jews in Norway, they ‘have to go through us first’ – and I think that’s very positive.”
Kohn said the synagogue agreed to the initiative as long as more than 30 young Muslims showed up – because otherwise, “it may seem counterproductive. “But if you fill Bergstien (the street on which the synagogue is located),” he added, “it will be very good.”
Arshad told Vårt Land the group had decided on the project both as “fellow human beings and Muslims in Norway, to show that Muslims distance themselves from the anti-Semitism which Jews encounter daily.”
In a statement on the group’s Facebook, they write that “Islam is to rise above hate and never sink at the same level as the haters. [We as] Muslims wish to show that we take deep exception to all forms of hatred of Jews and that we/w w w jewishpress dot com/news/breaking-news/young-muslims-organize-to-protect-oslo-synagogue-as-jews-pray-in-norway/2015/02/18/are there to support them. This is why we shall be forming a human ring around the synagogue.”
Muslim Woman Covers the Yellow Star of Her Jewish Neighbor with Her Veil on the Streets of Sarajevo in 1941
Muslim woman covers the yellow star of her Jewish neighbor with her veil on the streets of Sarajevo in 1941.
The above photo was taken in Sarajevo in 1941, showing a Muslim woman walking with her Jewish neighbor and covering her yellow star with her veil. (via. Reddit)
“The Jewish family was actually staying with the Muslim family after their home was destroyed.
A Muslim veiled woman, Zejneba Hardaga (right) and Jewish woman, Rivka Kalb (2nd from right) and her children (with beret) are guided on the streets of Sarajevo in 1941. Zejneba covered the yellow star on the Rivka’s left arm with her veil. Bahrija Hardasa, sister-in-law of Zejneba, is on the far left.
http://popchassid.com/10-photos-muslim-jewish-unity/
Liars or Fools: Which Govern America?
It’s one or the other when it comes to the mainstream narrative on Islam.
January 15, 2016
Raymond Ibrahim
When it comes to the connection between Islam and “anti-infidel” violence, one fact must be embraced: the majority of those in positions of leadership and authority in America are either liars or fools, or both. No other alternative exist.
The reason for this uncharitable assertion is simple: If Islam was once a faraway, exotic religion, now hardly a day goes by without Americans hearing calls for, and seeing acts of, violence committed in the name of Islam. If our leaders don’t, many of us still have “ears that hear and eyes that see” (Proverbs 20:12).
Today, Muslims from all around the world and from all walks of life unequivocally and unapologetically proclaim that Islam commands them to kill or subjugate all who resist it—including all non-Muslims.
This message is hardly limited to jihadi groups like the Islamic State. It’s the official position of several Muslim governments (including America’s closest “friends and allies,” like Saudi Arabia and Qatar, as demonstrated in a forthcoming article); it’s the official position of Islamic institutions of lower and higher learning, including Al Azhar, the world’s most prestigious Islamic university; and it’s the official position broadcast in numerous languages on Islamic satellite stations.
In short, there’s no excuse for ignorance about Islam in America—especially if you hold a position of leadership or authority. Yet it is precisely those in such positions who vehemently deny any connection between Islam and violence. Why?
The most recent example took place on January 7. Edward Archer, a convert to Islam, shot and wounded Philadelphia police officer Jesse Hartnett. He later explained his motivation: “I follow Allah. I pledge my allegiance to the Islamic state. That is why I did what I did.”
Yet after showing a surveillance video of Archer in Islamic dress shooting at Hartnett, Philadelphia mayor Jim Kenney emphatically declared:
In no way shape or form does anyone in this room believe that Islam or the teaching of Islam has anything to do with what you’ve seen on the screen….It is abhorrent. It is terrible and it does not represent the religion or any of its teachings. This is a criminal with a stolen gun who tried to kill one of our officers. It has nothing to do with being a Muslim or following the Islamic faith.
Kenney’s assertions are either the product of an addled brain or calculated lies. Take your pick, but there are no other alternatives.
If those running the show still don’t “get it,” the overwhelming majority of Americans have by now learned, in Donald Trump’s words, that “there’s something going on” with Islam, “You see the hatred. I mean, we see it every day.”
“We see it every day” is absolutely correct—hence why those who deny it must either be liars or fools. (See “Muslim Persecution of Christians,” reports which I’ve been compiling every month since July 2011, and witness the nonstop violence and carnage committed against non-Muslim minorities living under Islam.)
Still, Kenney’s falsehoods and/or foolishness are mainstream. Most politicians—practically every democrat but also a majority of republicans—makes the same claims, beginning with U.S. President Obama who insists that the Islamic State “is not Islamic,” calls for the “rejection by non-Muslims of the ignorance that equates Islam with terror,” and classified the Fort Hood massacre as “workplace violence,” despite the overwhelming evidence that it was jihad.
More recently, democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton admonished us to get aboard the wishful thinking bandwagon: “Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.” Republican leaders like John McCain say that “unequivocally, without a doubt, the religion of Islam is an honorable and reasonable religion. ISIS has nothing to do with the reality of Islam.” “Conservative” talking heads like Bill O’Reilley flippantly dismiss jihad as “a perversion of Islam, we all know that.”
And so it goes. In the context of the most recent slaughter of Americans at the hands of Muslims—one last December and one last November, both in California—the usual chorus of politicians, media, and others made the same tired claims.
Despite the evidence that the Muslim couple that massacred 14 people in San Bernardino was motivated by Islamic teachings of jihad against the hated “infidel,” Obama claimed “We do not know their motivations.” Chris Hayes and MSNBC were also “baffled” in their search for a motive.
Despite the many indicators that the Muslim student who went on a stabbing spree in UC Merced was motivated by Islam—he was described as a “devout Muslim,” had an ISIS flag, and praised Allah in his manifesto—“local and federal authorities continue to insist that Faisal Mohammad, 18, carried out the vicious attack because he’d been banished from a study group.”
In response, the father of Byron Price, who was stabbed while defending some Merced victims, observed that, “Everyone is afraid to be politically incorrect… [I]t seems like to me we aren’t getting the whole story. I just wonder how much of this is driven from way higher up and is politically driven — I just don’t know.”
Unfortunately, it was one thing to be politically correct when America existed in a utopian bubble away from all the nastiness “over there,” but to be politically correct at this late hour when the tentacles of the global jihad are well entrenched in America is suicidal, literally.
Either way, political correctness is a fancy way of saying “lying”— bringing us right back to our question and a final observation: It doesn’t matter if those running the show are liars or fools, for at day’s end, the result is the same: the world’s strongest nation lays paralyzed before a vicious threat that grows more emboldened by the day.
Bam, you keep offering the same articles under various headings…we need to be afraid of islam…but liberals are not stating the danger…
Please offer something new.
I have noticed you failed to address any of my counters to your previous posts, do you treat your children the way you treat your arguments, throw them out and never follow up on them ? 🙂
How interesting that he states “Today, Muslims from all around the world and from all walks of life unequivocally and unapologetically proclaim that Islam commands them to kill or subjugate all who resist it—including all non-Muslims.
This message is hardly limited to jihadi groups like the Islamic State. It’s the official position of several Muslim governments (including America’s closest “friends and allies,” like Saudi Arabia and Qatar, as demonstrated in a forthcoming article); it’s the official position of Islamic institutions of lower and higher learning, including Al Azhar, the world’s most prestigious Islamic university; and it’s the official position broadcast in numerous languages on Islamic satellite stations., but rather than supporting his argument, he offers this as demonstrated in a forthcoming article).
Well, I call BS on that.
By the way, Israel has vowed to destroy anyone who is not a Jew, including Christians, to hang and quarter them, then have sex with their corpses (as demonstrated in a forthcoming article). See how easy it is to do?
If your argument is that political correctness has gone amok, please remember that when people claim the right to be as anti-Semitic as they wish based on anti-political correctness. It will happen…no attack on the other goes long before it be an attack on Jews. No worries though, come to me and I’ll save you as Jews were saved by Muslims throughout history 🙂
@Hildegard
1, January 16, 2016 at 2:45 pm
“You’re going to have to enter that rabbit hole on your own or stay there at the door asking for more and more proof that it exists, when the evidence is hiding in plain sight. I’ve already posted so many good resources.”
Please note that you still haven’t indicated what “it” is in the sentence above.
Unless you can concretely describe what it is that you want people to wake up to or get, you’re just indulging in emotional venting about some vague, undefined, giant Evil Plot.
To the extent that you’re doing so, you’re actually providing cover to those with a vested interest in labeling legitimate, evidence-based criticisms of specific malefaction in high places as “wild-eyed conspiracy theory.”
Try pausing your self-righteous impatience, Hildy, lest people be tempted to dismiss you as many have your political hero, Donald Trump:
“Donald Trump said last night that despite calling Ted Cruz a ‘maniac,’ he has since learned that Cruz has a ‘wonderful temperament.’ And if Donald Trump thinks you have a ‘wonderful temperament,’ you’re probably a maniac.” –Seth Meyers
🙂
Try reading this article Ken, or just have it your way.
The article link has the word sh*t in it without the asterisk, which might explain why I’ve been unsuccessful in posting it. So you’ll need to simply search on the article name: The Brutal Onslaught of Bullsh*t
I don’t think it’s really going to help, though. The “IT” I’m talking about cannot be condensed into one link or a sound bite. You seem to want a predigested or Readers Digest version. Sorry about that. I tried….
I’ve made three unsuccessful attempts to post comments. What’s up Mr. Moderator?
How many links did you attach, Hilde, more than two triggers the net.
Hildegard: “I’ve made three unsuccessful attempts to post comments. What’s up Mr. Moderator?”
~+~
The filter picked it up due to prohibited word usage
Yeah, another commentary by our friend Daniel Greenbeans! I missed him, bam, thanks.
But…man…I went directly to the source http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/aug/30/rotherham-girls-could-have-been-spared-ann-cryer…instead of the commentaries by the national revew, PCwatch and any other website with a bias against muslims and a bent for offending others.
Nowhere did I see the following :”During those six years at least 1,400 girls from the age of 11 in just one English city (Rotherham, population 275,000) were raped by gangs of men, nearly all of whom were immigrants (mostly from Pakistan) or their sons, instead, I see this “They said the girls were being used for sex by them and handed around – not as prostitutes, but were being handed around the families of these lads. This was underage sex. These girls were well below 16.
…So she asked a friend, a Muslim councillor of Pakistani heritage, to approach the elders at the mosque with a list of 35 names and addresses of the alleged perpetrators.
…In 2004, five of the 35 men were sent to prison.
Now, don’t get me wrong, that is bad enough, but a very far cry from 1400 girls…11….gangs …pakistanis….
Then again, what else to expect from our friend bam and her “sources”?
Here is the link. You are welcome, bam 🙂
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/aug/30/rotherham-girls-could-have-been-spared-ann-cryer
Dalia Mogahed: Mainstreaming Islamic Oppression
Sharia advocate goes on the Daily Show to explain why Islamic oppression of women is, hey, really cool.
January 15, 2016
Robert Spencer
Dalia Mogahed, formerly Barack Obama’s adviser on Muslim affairs, appeared on Trevor Noah’s sinking-like-a-stone Daily Show last week, to explain to a worshipful Noah and an adoring audience that the hijab represented nothing more or less than the “privatization of women’s sexuality” – and who on earth but the most benighted lout could possibly be against that? The burning outrage of Mogahed’s words was probably missed by most Daily Show viewers. It should not be missed by FrontPage readers.
“The privatization of women’s sexuality.” A well-constructed and extraordinarily clever phrase, to be sure. With it, Mogahed suggests that the only people who could possibly object to women wearing hijabs are those who want to objectify women as sexual commodities. In this, we glimpse the subtle manipulation by which Islamic supremacists such as Mogahed have co-opted and silenced feminists whom one might otherwise have expected to have stood up against the Sharia oppression of women. How can one stand with the objectifiers, the pornographers, the users, the haters, against those who simply want to “privatize” their sexuality?
The audience loved this. Noah ate it up. But there are a few audiences before whom Mogahed’s extremely clever act might not play quite as well as it did before the Daily Show. Aqsa Parvez’s Muslim father choked her to death with her hijab after she refused to wear it. Aqsa might have a few choice words for Dalia Mogahed about “privatization” of her sexuality. And then there was Amina Muse Ali, who was a Christian woman in Somalia whom Muslims murdered because she wasn’t wearing a hijab. Forty women were murdered in Iraq in 2007 for not wearing the hijab. They might wish that their sexuality had been a trifle less “privatized” – at least enough for them to be able to continue to breathe air.
Will Dalia Mogahed and Trevor Noah get together on another Daily Show episode to say a few words in memory of Aqsa, Amina, and the forty Iraqi women? Will they honor the memory of Amira, an Egyptian girl who committed suicide after being brutalized for her family for refusing to “privatize” her sexuality and wear the hijab? Will they defend the freedom of Alya Al-Safar, whose Muslim cousin threatened to kill her and harm her family because she stopped privatizing her sexuality and wearing the hijab in Britain? Will they speak up for the Saudi schoolgirls who were burnt alive because firefighters wouldn’t enter their burning school since they weren’t wearing hijab, i.e., their sexuality was insufficiently privatized?
When will we see the Daily Show episode on Amira Osman Hamid, who faces whipping in Sudan for refusing to wear the hijab? Will we hear about the sexuality privatization of the Muslim and non-Muslim teachers at the Islamic College of South Australia who were told that they had to wear the hijab or be fired? How about the women in Chechnya whom police shot with paintballs because they weren’t wearing hijab; or the women also in Chechnya who were threatened by men with automatic rifles for not wearing hijab; or the elementary school teachers in Tunisia who were threatened with death for not wearing hijab; or the Syrian schoolgirls who were forbidden to go to school unless they wore hijab; or the women in Gaza whom Hamas has forced to wear hijab; or the women in Iran who protested against the regime by daring to take off their legally-required hijab; or the women in London whom Muslim thugs threatened to murder if they didn’t wear hijab; or the anonymous young Muslim woman who doffed her hijab outside her home and started living a double life in fear of her parents? When is the Daily Show episode scheduled about the hazards that lie in the way of women who refuse to “privatize their sexuality”? When will Dalia Mogahed and Trevor Noah spare a few words for these and all the other women and girls who have been killed or threatened, or who live in fear for daring not to wear the hijab?
Dalia Mogahed has done this before. Several years ago she appeared on a British TV show sponsored by the pro-Sharia group Hizb ut-Tahrir and proclaimed: “Sharia is not well understood and Islam as a faith is not well understood.” Who has misunderstood Sharia and Islam, O Ms. Privatized Mogahed? Was it Aqsa Parvez, who might perhaps have believed the establishment codswallop about Islam being a religion of peace and tolerance long enough to think that she might survive into adulthood even while not wearing hijab? Was it any of these other women and girls who might have had a different understanding from that of Ms. Mogahed of the “privatization” of their sexuality, and didn’t deserve to have Ms. Mogahed’s view violently enforced upon them?
Mogahed added on the Hizb ut-Tahrir show that we have erroneously associated Sharia with “maximum criminal punishments” and “laws that… to many people seem unequal to women.” “Seem unequal”? The next time a young man is brutally murdered by his family to cleanse the family “honor,” call my office. Until then, the fact is undeniable: the path to Mogahed’s “privatization of women’s sexuality” is littered with the mangled bodies of those women and girls whose sexuality was deemed insufficiently privatized. For Mogahed and Noah so glibly to gloss over that fact was tantamount to dancing on their graves.
Bam, you do know that quoting Rober Spencer undermines whatever claim you are making?
It is akin to me quoting Hamas about Israel!
I mean,quoting the leading islamophobe to make a point against Islam? Really?
Who next, Pamella Geller?
Are you saying that a well-educated, smart and qualified woman like Dalia should not be allowed to speak on her faith and what she finds in it?
She is not smart enough to speak on herself?
Robert Spencer,a man, should have more right to speak on Dalia than she does on herself?
What type of misogyny is this?
Says something about you that you would side with a man against a woman (if indeed you are a woman???!!!!!)
By the way, when did she ever support shariah law? I am awaiting your proof.
Only a hateful, dark, dark heart and mind would find something to say agaisnt this:
http://www.cc.com/video-clips/ju44t3/the-daily-show-with-trevor-noah-dalia-mogahed—understanding-american-muslims-and-the-media-s-coverage-of-terrorism
CAIR Caught Lying About Philly Cop Shooter Not Going to Mosque
January 13, 2016
Daniel Greenfield
CAIR’s Big Lie technique is just to get ahead of the story by spreading their quotes without worrying what happens when it gets disproven. Considering the public’s attention span and the media’s dishonesty, this no doubt works to some degree. There are probably plenty of Americans who still think that San Bernardino was a workplace argument that got out of hand.
Nickarama at Weasel Zippers shoots up another CAIR lie about the “In Allah’s Name” cop shooter in Philly.
“At this hour, it does not appear that he was an observant or mosque-going Muslim” in the local community, said Jacob Bender, executive director of the Philadelphia Chapter of the Council on American–Islamic Relations.
“I’ve called numerous imams and mosques to try to see if the name rings a bell with anyone. So far it hasn’t,” he told Reuters in an interview.
But Natalie King, one of Archer’s neighbors, said that he was seen going to the mosque every Friday night.
But of course it’s not hard to get the results you want to provide plausible deniability for a claim like that.
Every Muslim terrorism is invariably described as not really going to mosque or being part of a Muslim community because that provides support for CVE and the idea that the way to fight Muslim terrorism is with Islamic indoctrination and that mosque attendance and Islam don’t contribute to Islamic terrorism.
That’s the mangled mindset that led the mayor of Philly to insist that a man who shot a police officer in Allah’s name had nothing to do with Islam.
Bam, every friday night? No one is at the mosque on friday nights?
You sure she did not mean friday midday? That is the communal prayer.
If he was going friday nights, no wonder no one knows him, he was alone there 🙂
Multiculturalism Trumps Protecting Women from Rape
In the competition between multiculturalism and one of the most elementary instincts and obligations of higher civilization, higher civilization lost.
January 13, 2016
Dennis Prager
Since the scores of New Year’s Eve sexual attacks on German women by hundreds of men identified as Arab or North African, the left in Germany has faced a dilemma: which to fight for first — women’s human rights or multiculturalism?
This was the same dilemma that faced British authorities between 1997 and 2013. During those six years at least 1,400 girls from the age of 11 in just one English city (Rotherham, population 275,000) were raped by gangs of men, nearly all of whom were immigrants (mostly from Pakistan) or their sons.
But British authorities kept silent. Why?
In 2014, the reason finally was revealed: The perpetrators were Muslim, and British authorities were therefore afraid to publicize — or often even investigate — the crimes. They feared being branded Islamophobic and racist. Politicians on the left and right acknowledged this fact.
As I wrote in a column in 2014:
“In 2002, a Labor Party MP from nearby Keighley, Ann Cryer, complained to the police about ‘young Asian lads’ raping girls in her constituency. In her words, she ‘was shunned by elements of her party.’ And note, that as is demanded by the left in the UK, she didn’t even mention that the rapists were Pakistani, lest Muslims be blamed for this evil. They were ‘Asian lads.’”
The British Home Secretary, Theresa May, told Parliament that “institutionalized political correctness” was responsible for the lack of attention given to the mass rape.
In other words, between protecting over a thousand girls from repeated gang rape and protecting Muslims from being identified as the rapists, British authorities chose to protect multiculturalism and “diversity.” In the competition between multiculturalism and one of the most elementary instincts and obligations of higher civilization — the protection of girls and women from sexual violence — higher civilization lost.
The U.K. is of course not alone in having multiculturalism and the fear of being branded racist or Islamophobic take precedence over protecting girls and women. Some German authorities’ reaction to the events of New Year’s Eve in Cologne exemplified this.
After the attacks in Cologne, the mayor of Cologne suggested, in the words of The New York Times, “that women can protect themselves from men on the streets by keeping them more than an arm’s length away.”
In the mayor’s words: “It is always possible to keep a certain distance that is longer than an arm’s length.”
Aside from the moral foolishness of the comment, it is factually incorrect. It is often impossible to keep an arm’s length distance from others — as, for example, on a crowded bus or train, or, as in Cologne on New Year’s Eve, on crowded streets.
It is important to note two things about the mayor. One is that she has been among Germany’s most vociferous advocates of accepting 800,000 Syrian refugees into Germany.
The other is that she is a woman.
One would assume that a woman would instinctively wholly condemn the sexual predators rather than lecture women on the distance they should always keep from men in order to avoid being attacked. But the mayor, like the British authorities, has opted for multiculturalism over human and women’s rights, for fighting Islamophobia over fighting to protect women.
A related example is Ralf Jaeger, the interior minister of North Rhine-Westphalia state, the German state in which Cologne is located. The left-wing minister said: “What happens on the right-wing platforms and in chat rooms is at least as awful as the acts of those assaulting the women.”
All the isms of the left — multiculturalism, feminism, environmentalism, socialism, Marxism, egalitarianism — distort the individual’s and society’s moral compass. But, as the minister’s comments make clear, none do so more than the left’s loathing of conservatives and conservative values.
As with multiculturalism, a left-wing priority — in this case destroying the right — has distorted the left’s moral compass. How could anyone in his right mind write that right-wing platforms and chat rooms are “at least as awful” as women being sexually attacked and even raped by gangs of men? The answer is that you cannot be in your right mind; you have to be in your left mind.
Randy, don’t just take my words for it
—————————————–
Divine words: what role does language learning play in religious practice?
For many, developing an understanding of a religion extends to learning its associated language. We spoke to those learning Arabic, Hebrew and classical Tibetan Buddhist
Does relying on a translations of a religious text get in the way of practising a faith?
“Silence is the language of God, all else is poor translation,” Sufi mystic Rumi once said.
Words are, however, a way for the worldly to connect with the divine through prayer and worship. For many, developing a greater understanding of a religion extends not only to studying the theological and philosophical points but to learning another language. We spoke to three people studying Arabic, Hebrew and classical Tibetan about the role languages play in their relationship with religion.
Hebrew and Judaism
Retiree Anne Evans decided to learn Hebrew as a way to reconnect with her Jewish heritage after the death of her parents. Although not particularly religious, the Holocaust survivors from Lithuania proudly maintained their Jewish traditions. Wanting to do something that brought her closer to them she enrolled on a Hebrew course at the Spiro Ark school for Jewish education.
The language, she claims, is intimately involved in an understanding of the religion, with word stems allowing a whole philosophy to be found in a single term. Take the word barmitzvah, for example. The word literally means “son of the commandment” and is used to refer to a Jewish boy’s coming of age ceremony. However, the stem “mitzvah” on its own has deeper layers of meaning, referring to the 613 commandments given in the Torah at biblical Mount Sinai and the seven rabbinic commandments instituted later. It is also used to refer to a good deed.
Evans feels overwhelmed by the sense of history she feels when reciting the passover prayers in Hebrew which have been memorised and spoken by Jews from Russia to Afghanistan for thousands of years: “That has made me not devout but truly proud to be Jewish, truly gobsmacked by it all.”
Nitza Spiro, director of the Spiro Ark school, says she has seen a large increase in the number of people wishing to learn both biblical and modern Hebrew. Spiro agrues that language is central to Jewish identity and its resilience. “Books meant our spirit, our hope, our outlook on life, our morality, our ability to argue about issues which are higher than the daily mundane things,” says Spiro. “Without it [Hebrew] you don’t have the tools to understand what it is to be a Jew.”
Arabic and Islam
Just as Hebrew has helped preserve Jewish religion and culture for generations, the Islamic intellectual, legal and social heritage has been transmitted for centuries in Arabic. All Muslims are not only required to recite daily prayers in Arabic, but they must have a minimum amount of the Qur’an memorised for the purposes of prayer and worship.
London-based Imam, Shafiur Rahman, believes learning the language would help prevent any dangerous misinterpretations of the holy book. While there are parts of the Qur’an which are open to interpretation, Arabic scholars have developed sciences around grammar, syntax, and rhetoric which ensure followers don’t extrapolate meanings from the book which weren’t intended. The word “jihad”, for example, is often translated as “holy war” but actually means “struggling” or “surviving”.
Despite the importance placed by Islam on learning Arabic, Rahman claims there is a tremendous disconnect between the generation of today, especially in the west, and this heritage.
He says: “There would be a much better understanding of what Islam is, how the original community around the prophet Muhammad understood Islam and how subsequent generations developed their understanding according to context and situation, if more Muslims learned Arabic.”
Classical Tibetan and Buddhism
For Tibetan Buddhist Lydia Polzer, learning a foreign language has become an integral part of her religious practice. Polzer first became interested in the eastern tradition a decade ago after attending meditation courses at the Kagyu Samye Dzong Tibetan centre in London. What started as a curiosity about the benefits of mindfulness quickly developed into a greater involvement with some of the more complex Buddhist rituals.
Tibetan Buddhism first put down roots in the UK in the 60s, with the founding of Kagyu Samye Ling monastery in Scotland in 1967, and the tradition’s mother tongue is still preferred by both western monastic and lay practitioners for recitation of prayers during these practices.
Polzer explains that while a transliteration of the Tibetan script is provided, she yearned for the alien prose to trip effortlessly off her tongue and understand what she was chanting without having to keep one eye on the English translation. With a group of other eager practitioners, she started to learn the language through online Skype lessons for colloquial speaking and by attending workshops in classical Tibetan with a native speaker at the centre.
“For me it is about appreciating the culture and having respect for the Tibetan teachers who visit us,” she says. “I want to understand first-hand and not rely on translators.”
Whether it’s for better job prospects, travel or the desire to become closer to your significant other, there are a myriad of reasons why people learn a foreign language. For many, however, it is an opportunity to connect with their beliefs and culture on a deeper level, developing an understanding which they believe transcends words and speech.
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/nov/10/language-learning-for-religious-reasons
@Ken Rogers
This blogging is getting very time consuming but here we go..
“KR: What “is simply not true”? Hersh was reporting what the intelligence estimate found, i.e., that Obama’s STATED goal of arming “moderate” Syrian rebels was being undercut by Turkey’s arming radical jihadists in Syria, who were co-opting or absorbing (or killing) the moderates.”
The keyword is STATED goal.
http://thesaker.is/week-four-of-the-russian-intervention-in-syria-assessing-the-vienna-declaration/
US actions/policies/goals US official policy on Syria
Full military support for Daesh Categorical opposition to Daesh
Promotion of a Wahabi regime Promotion of a secular regime
Breakup of Syria Maintaining a unitary Syria
Destruction of the Syrian military Maintaining the Syria military
Sabotage of all Russian efforts Collaboration with Russia
Regime change in Iran Iran as partner
I don’t really have the time to prove all these points. You just have to finally get that the Obama administration and every administration since JFK and probably before employs Orwellian double speak par excellence. I mean seriously, “If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor” is just one of literally thousands of examples. Isn’t there some point where you have an “AHA” moment? Where you get that the truth is the OPPOSITE of what the U.S. Corporation/government main stream media mouthpiece tells the masses? If Russia is our enemy they are in fact our friend and by OUR I mean you and I.
“KR: As I don’t recall that you’ve yet done so, how about taking this opportunity to explain what “this agenda” consists of that you’re trying to get people to “wake up to” or “get”?”
There are literally hundreds if not thousands of articles, papers, documents, videos, interviews I could post here under the heading of The New World Order, Global Governance, False Flag Terror Events, Fascism 101, Tyranny 101, The History of Humanity….5000 wars, The Fall of the Roman Empire, JFK assassination, the Khazarian Mafia, The Rothschild/J.P. Morgan/Bush Cabal….Endgame, The Obama Deception, 1984, The Rand Corporation Stability Police Force for the United States and on and on and on….
List of 56 false flag attacks
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/11/the-first-question-to-ask-after-any-terror-attack-was-it-a-false-flag.html
You’re going to have to enter that rabbit hole on your own or stay there at the door asking for more and more proof that it exists, when the evidence is hiding in plain sight. I’ve already posted so many good resources..
Sorry, I wish I had endless patience…
Oops, the first paragraph shoulda read :”
Your logic is that since child marriage is illegal in Israel, though it happens still in Israel and in the diaspora, we’ll just ignore its occurrences and go with the fact that on the books, at least, it is illegal.
And yet, you are eager to dismiss that same benefit of the doubt to any muslim society where it happens.
I agree with you that Pakistan is an idiotic country to make it a law, but compare it to Israel where it is not the law BUT still happens. Compare it to the US where it is not the law but still happens.
——————————-
Child abuse: Jewish cult investigated
AN extremist ultra-Orthodox Jewish group has been raided by police in Montreal, Canada, in what is thought to be an investigation into child marriages – and an Ontario judge has upheld a Quebec court’s ruling that 14 children from the haredi Lev Tahor (Pure Heart) cult must be placed into temporary foster care.
However, the judge put a 30-day stay in place to give the children’s families time to appeal. Child protection officials in Quebec previously presented the Quebec court with evidence of neglect, psychological abuse, poor dental hygiene, poor physical health, the lack of secular education and child marriages.
But the 250-member cult fled Quebec for rural Ontario in November just before the judge’s order removing the children was issued.
Lev Tahor’s spokesmen have denied the allegations and claims Quebec officials are working with Israel in a Zionist plot to destroy Lev Tahor.
Last week, Quebec police and local Chatham, Ontario police raided two Lev Tahor homes and removed at least one box of evidence.
Rabbi Nachman Helbrans, son of Lev Tahor’s founder, convicted kidnapper Rabbi Shlomo Helbrans who has fled to Iran with some cult members, reportedly said the search could have been an attempt to find evidence of illegal child marriages.
Shlomo Helbrans was accused of child abuse and kidnapping in Israel and in the United States before fleeing to Canada.
A while back his wife Malka alleged that she’d almost been beaten to death by Hebrans’ followers.
The trouble for the rabbi’s wife began after she voiced opposition to the rampant child abuse going on in the community.
The main reason for my sufferings is the fact that I dared to voice opposition to the punishments that are being used in the village.
Punishments included beatings of children, forced marriages between members of the community, marriage of minors as young as 14, achieving compliance through pain, denial of food, violent separation between parents and children from the age of six months, complete isolation from family in Israel, and more.
@Hildegard
1, January 16, 2016 at 3:34 am
Sy Hersh: “ ‘The new intelligence estimate singled out Turkey as a major impediment to Obama’s Syria policy.’
H: “It is my opinion that that is simply not true. Turkey and the U.S. have exactly the same policy and the same goal. Simply put they’re on the same team with different uniforms.”
KR: What “is simply not true”? Hersh was reporting what the intelligence estimate found, i.e., that Obama’s stated goal of arming “moderate” Syrian rebels was being undercut by Turkey’s arming radical jihadists in Syria, who were co-opting or absorbing (or killing) the moderates.
KR: If you’re asserting that Obama’s stated policy was different from his actual policy all along, and that the US Army brass were duped by Obama regarding his intentions, that is an entirely different thing and one that it’s incumbent upon you to provide evidence of, if you want to be taken seriously.
H: “Sorry, I KNOW I get pissy about these things, but I’m just getting so anxious with the speed with which this agenda is being played out and the number of people who just don’t get it….who just don’t get the big picture.
KR: As I don’t recall that you’ve yet done so, how about taking this opportunity to explain what “this agenda” consists of that you’re trying to get people to “wake up to” or “get”?
I’m asking sincerely, not snarkily.
For a good laugh this morning, I suggest folks go to some Muslim web sites and read what they have to say about why prayers are only good if they are done in Arabic. Turns out that Arabic is the most perfect language and the language of Allah. I guess that Allah has a hard time understanding other languages or can’t stand the sound of them. Of course they forget that the universal language now is English and is the language of science, commerce, and most advances in all other fields. It used to be that German was required for chemistry majors, and French for international diplomacy. It has been centuries since Arabic language folks have contributed anything at all to our knowledge base.
Randy, I am hereby taking back any compliment I have ever paid you…this was the dumbest post I have read this side of bambam’s.
Your attacking Arabic as the language of the quran and of the religion reveals that you really do not have a real argument.
Wow,…frankly, I am shocked and disappointed. I mean, the examples abound of sacred language used in rituals, including ALL houses of worship… even some Christian churches speak in tongues for the sacred language enhances the ritual…
Have you ever recited the quran? Do you know that it is the most complex yet efficient language on earth?
That it is poetic language? That it rhymes and therefore sustains the spiritual and the transcendence?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgbWamEDui8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jivNz_i9QTU
Why is the Qur’an a Miracle?
What makes the Qur’an a miracle, is that it is impossible for a human being to compose something like it, as it lies outside the productive capacity of the nature of the Arabic language. The productive capacity of nature, concerning the Arabic language, is that any grammatically sound expression of the Arabic language will always fall with-in the known Arabic literary forms of prose and poetry. All of the possible combinations of Arabic words, letters and grammatical rules have been exhausted and yet its literary form has not been matched linguistically. The Arabs, who were known to have been Arabic linguists par excellence, failed to successfully challenge the Qur’an. Forster Fitzgerald Arbuthnot, who was a notable British Orientalist and translator, states:
“…and that though several attempts have been made to produce a work equal to it as far as elegant writing is concerned, none has as yet succeeded.”[11]
The implication of this is that there is no link between the Qur’an and the Arabic language; however this seems impossible because the Qur’an is made up of the Arabic language. On the other hand, every combination of Arabic words and letters have been used to try and imitate the Qur’an. Therefore, this leaves only one conclusion; a Divine explanation is the only coherent explanation for this impossible Arabic literary form – the Qur’an. Hence, it logically follows that if the Qur’an is a literary event that lies outside the productive capacity of the Arabic language, i.e. an impossibility, then by definition, it is a miracle.
The challenge in the Qur’an
In the following verses Allah has challenged the whole of mankind to try and produce a single chapter like the Qur’an. This challenge, which has remained unmet, captivated the minds of the Arabs at the time of revelat-ion. They rationally assessed that if an Arab cannot challenge the Qur’an and nor could a non-Arab, then the only source of the Qur’an is the Creator. The Qur’an states:
“If you are in doubt of what We have revealed to Our Messenger, then produce one chapter like it, call upon all your helpers, besides Allah, if you are truthful.” Surah al-Baqarah (The Heifer) 2: 23.
“Or do they say: “He (Prophet Muhammad, ) has forged it (this Qur’an)?” Nay! They believe not! Let them then produce a recitation like it (the Qur’an) if they are truthful.” Surah at-Toor (The Mount) 52: 33-34.
According to Qur’anic commentators such as Ibn Kathir, Suyuti and Ibn Abbas, these verses issue a challenge to produce a chapter that imitates the unique literary form of the Qur’an.[12] The tools needed to meet this challenge are the finite grammatical rules and the twenty eight letters that make-up the Arabic alphabet; these are independent and objective measures available to all. The fact that it has not been matched since it was revealed does not surprise scholars familiar with the Arabic language and that of the Qur’an.
The Qur’an was revealed over 1430 years ago and the challenge to produce something like the Qur’an has remained to this day. Throughout the centuries, thinkers, poets, theologians and literary critics have attempted to challenge the Qur’an. Some of these challengers in the past have included: Musaylamah; Ibn Al-Mukaffa; Yahya ibn Al-Hakam al-Ghazal; Sayyid ‘Ali Muhammad; Bassar ibn Burd.
Without going into an extensive analysis of why Muslim and non-Muslim scholars have agreed that those who have attempted to challenge the Qur’an have failed, the following summary should suffice. Even though the challengers have had the same set of ‘tools’, which are the twenty eight Arabic letters, finite grammatical rules and the blue print of the challenge – which is the Qur’an itself; they have failed to:
1. Replicate the Qur’an’s literary form
2. Match the unique linguistic nature of the Qur’an
3. Select and arrange words like that of the Qur’an
4. Select and arrange similar grammatical particles
5. Match the Qur’an’s superior eloquence and sound
6. Equal the frequency of rhetorical devices
7. Match the level of content and informativeness
8. Equal the Qur’an’s conciseness and flexibilityhamzatzortzis.com/essays-articles/exploring-the-quran/the-inimitable-quran/
And what does it have to do with English being the official language of the world?
Can English do this?
randyjet – this brings up the old argument of “Do we pray to the same God? Clearly not.”