Well worth watching, if you haven’t already.

I’m back and ready to rumble. The TOD will return to regular de-programming shortly, I’ve just gotta chew through (at double speed) all the work that has piled up for me on five different fronts. For now, here’s Stuck Mojo with the CAIR remix of their track “Open Season”, to get you in the mood:

(h/t Fortress Australia)

I am going on holidays for a couple of weeks, leaving tonight. Gonna get right outta town and take it real easy up on the NSW North Coast.

Over and out.

The following is an extract from an essay by Dr John Lewis, associate professor of history at Ashland University. It was entitled “No Substitute for Victory – The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism”. The whole thing is rather long, but worth the read. There is also a clarification letter from Dr Lewis that answers some questions he received following this essay, over at JihadWatch. (h/t JihadWatch)

[..] The Japanese were motivated by a politicized religious ideology—Shintoism—that posited an all-powerful deity, indoctrinated their children, infected every aspect of their culture, and drove them to suicidal military actions that killed millions. An educational rescript of 1890—an Imperial decree, and one of the most influential documents in Japanese history—built this “mytho-religious ideology” into the classroom, making worship of the Emperor and duty to the State into the primary goals of education.11 Japanese people memorized its tenets, and were inculcated with what one Japanese scholar called “socialization for death.”12 A Japanese civilian remarked how, when she heard that the Emperor was going to address his people—an unprecedented event—the words she had memorized as a child rose in her mind: “Should any emergency arise, offer yourself courageously to the State.” Such ideas, deeply internalized and mandated by law, motivated suicide bombers—kamikaze—to throw themselves fanatically against superior U.S. forces, and gave them hope for a final battle over weak-willed Americans. This kamikaze fire was extinguished by the crushing American offensive of 1945.

The Islamic Totalitarian movement has a similar fire burning at its core—an authoritarian, state-centered religion, replete with state-funded educational indoctrination, a massive suicide cult on behalf of the deity and state, and hope for a final battle over the Americans. The key to extinguishing this fire, I submit—the sine qua non required to end the spiral of indoctrination, jihad, and suicidal attacks on the West—is to do what was done against Japan: to break the political power of the state religion. State Islam—Totalitarian Islam—rule by Islamic Law—must be obliterated.

[..] To begin to enshrine the inviolability of individual rights as the central principle of government, clerics of all kinds must be stripped of political power. There can be no freedom of thought and speech if those with claims to mystically derived ideas can enforce them coercively. Only by breaking the link between state power and religious belief can the state become a protector of each person’s right to worship or not worship as he wishes; only complete separation of religion and government can enable the government to serve its proper function: to protect each person’s right to think, speak, and act as he chooses.
Given this understanding of the issue, how should we begin to confront Totalitarian Islam? Again, there is precedent in history. The basic principles of a rational policy towards Islamic Totalitarianism—with clear strategic implications—were revealed in a striking telegram sent by the U.S. Secretary of State James Byrnes to General Douglas MacArthur, the American commander in Japan, in October, 1945. The telegram established the basic U.S. policy goals towards Shintoism, and laid out, for MacArthur and his subordinates, the basic principles by which those goals were to be achieved

Shintoism, insofar as it is a religion of individual Japanese, is not to be interfered with. Shintoism, however, insofar as it is directed by the Japanese government, and as a measure enforced from above by the government, is to be done away with. People would not be taxed to support National Shinto and there will be no place for Shintoism in the schools. Shintoism as a state religion—National Shinto, that is—will go . . . Our policy on this goes beyond Shinto . . . The dissemination of Japanese militaristic and ultra-nationalistic ideology in any form will be completely suppressed. And the Japanese Government will be required to cease financial and other support of Shinto establishments.

The telegram is clear about the need for separation between religion and state—between an individual’s right to follow Shinto and the government’s power to enforce it. This requirement applies to Islam today (and to Christianity and Judaism) as strongly as it did to Shinto. In regard to Japan, the job involved breaking the link between Shinto and state; in regard to Islamic Totalitarianism the task involves breaking the link between Islam and state. This is the central political issue we face: the complete lack of any conceptual or institutional separation between church and state in Islam, both historically and in the totalitarian movement today.

As for what we should do about this, the 1945 telegram is direct. Here is its opening, rewritten to substitute Islam for Shinto:

Islam, as it is a religion of individuals, is not to be interfered with. Islam, however, insofar as it is directed by governments, and as a measure enforced from above by any government, is to be done away with

There is no question here about religious freedom. Individual religious belief is to be left alone—as is all freedom to think and to speak by one’s own judgment—but state religion must be eliminated. It is vital that this principle be understood, stated clearly, and enforced—for this is a precondition of the thorough and permanent defeat of America’s current enemy.

Totalitarian Islam, an ideology that merges state power with religious belief, must go.

But proponents of Islamic Totalitarianism have political power, to some extent, in dozens of nations. Should we attack them all, immediately? No. We need to aim for the political, economic, and ideological center of this movement—the core that embodies its naked essence and that fuels it worldwide. This does not mean finding the particular people who organized the 9/11 attacks. The question is: In which state is Islam most solidly linked with political power, dedicated to the violent spread of Islamic rule, and infused with hatred of America? What state is founded on these ideas, and their practice, as a matter of principle? There is a clear answer, which is known, admittedly or not, by almost everyone today. The political centerpiece of Islamic Totalitarianism today—the state in which Islam is most militantly welded to political power and contempt for America and the West—the world leader in the violent spread of Islam—is Iran.

The Iranian Islamic State was born in an act of war against America—the seizure of the American embassy in 1979—and has chanted “Death to America” ever since. Even Muslims at odds with Iran for sectarian reasons, such as many followers of Osama Bin Laden, draw inspiration from it as they engage in their own jihads against the West. Bin Laden’s most important effect in this regard has been to energize and empower radical Muslims to rise above the petty squabbles between Persian and Arab, and between Sunni and Shiite, to join Iran against the “Great Satan”: America. Hezbollah, Hamas, and company are dependent on Iran for ideological, political, and economic strength. It is Iran that addresses the U.N. as a world leader; it is Iran that is openly committed to acquiring the weapons needed to take control of the Middle East; it is Iran that poses as the defender of Muslims against the West (for instance, through loyal clerics in Iraq); and it is Iran that has gained power since the U.S. removed its strongest regional opponent in Iraq.

The conclusion is inescapable. The road to the defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism begins in Tehran. America, acting alone and with overwhelming force, must destroy the Iranian Islamic State now. It must do so openly, and indeed spectacularly, for the entire world to see, for this is the only way to demonstrate the spectacular failure and incompetence of the Islamic fundamentalist movement as a whole

[..] One of the strongest parallels between Japanese Shintoism and Islamic Totalitarianism is the deep inculcation of theological militarism in children—a philosophical ideology centered on military service to a divinely sanctioned state—and the suicidal “socialization for death” that results. In each case, the central purpose of the educational system is to train children to obey a divine presence by inculcating in them a sense of submission and insignificance married to violence. Japanese children memorized the calls to duty by the Emperor; indoctrinated Islamic children memorize sword verses in the Koran. Japanese children bowed to the Emperor and obeyed his generals; Islamic children bow to Allah and obey his clerics. The grip of Islam over education has to be broken, as was the grip of Shinto over the schools in Japan.

After the regime in Iran is destroyed, the leadership in countries sponsoring such state training in Islamic jihad—especially Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt—must choose: Close the state-funded schools, or face the Iranian alternative. Until the U.S. demonstrates the nature of that choice, by serious retaliation against Iran, unambiguously connecting principled words to practical actions, there is no reason for any Middle Eastern leader to expect serious consequences. Until then, they are right to regard us as a paper tiger. Only the forthright destruction of the Iranian Islamic State can demonstrate the resolve needed for this task.

[..]
This is not a clash between civilizations; it is a clash between civilization and barbarism. Until civilized people assert themselves with a depth of moral confidence exceeding that projected by those who submit to the “will of Allah,” America will remain permanently on the defensive, in a state of moral dhimmitude, and the war will continue to its logical conclusion: a mushroom cloud over America.

Is it possible for a “moderate” form of Islam to become an alternative to the totalitarian world-view infecting so many Muslims? Perhaps, but let us be clear about what this would mean. This would mean an Islam that is explicitly separated from political power. It would mean an Islam whose clerics renounce all attempts to impose its law by force. It would mean an Islam that (like modern Christianity) is open to critical self-reflection, whose thinkers examine the Koran as a set of stories, compiled and interpreted by men—and not the infallible word of God to be spread by the sword. It would mean an Islam that allows apostates to make their own decisions, and that tolerates no death threats against them. It would mean the explicit rejection—by Muslims—of State Islam, Islamic Law, and the pursuit of jihad. Such “moderate” Muslims will support the obliteration of Totalitarian Islam. The rest must witness the defeat of this poisonous ideology, and grasp the hopelessness of supporting it.

And from Dr Lewis’ clarification letter:

In the long run, however, this is an intellectual battle. My stress on integrity means that we must understand the issues, and talk the talk as well as walking the walk. We have not properly stated our own goodness, and why we have a right to defend ourselves. It is the job of the intellectuals to state and defend these truths philosophically. If we do not present an alternative to the Qu’ran, and are unwilling to destroy those building nuclear bombs in order to impose it, then why should anyone re-write it? This may take five generations — but it will never happen if the political success of Islamic Totalitarianism is allowed to continue.

Dymphna at Gates of Vienna has a letter for Keith Ellison, currently the only Muslim in the American Congress. It is a challenge to Rep. Ellison to speak out on behalf of women in predominantly Muslim countries.

I hope he reads it. I hope he gets it. I hope he acts on it. I also hope he realises that the issues raised in the letter are at least in part a result of the adherence to the Koran and Sunnah.

Why? Well, yesterday Robert Spencer posted some reasons why his book “The Truth About Muhhamad” was banned in Pakistan for “objectionable material” about Muhhamad, and reasons 3 and 4 relate directly to the answer. Here’s a couple of reasons why the government of Pakistan can’t handle the Truth, that relate directly to the treatment of women in Islamic cultures:

3. Also in The Truth About Muhammad I discuss Muhammad’s marriage to little Aisha, which is specifically addressed in the hadith collection Sahih Bukhari (generally considered by Muslims to be the most reliable such collection). According to several traditions recorded by Bukhari, “the Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with ‘Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death)” (Bukhari 7.62.88; see also 7.62.65; 7.62.64; 5.58.236; 5.58.234).

It is quite obvious that many Muslims take very seriously and act upon the material on which I depended to write the book. Imitating the Prophet of Islam, many Muslims even in modern times have taken child brides. In some places this even has the blessing of the law: article 1041 of the Civil Code of the Islamic Republic of Iran states that girls can be engaged before the age of nine, and married at nine: “Marriage before puberty (nine full lunar years for girls) is prohibited. Marriage contracted before reaching puberty with the permission of the guardian is valid provided that the interests of the ward are duly observed.”[i]

The Ayatollah Khomeini himself married a ten-year-old girl when he was twenty-eight.[ii] Khomeini called marriage to a prepubescent girl “a divine blessing,” and advised the faithful: “Do your best to ensure that your daughters do not see their first blood in your house.”[iii]

Time magazine reported in 2001:

In Iran the legal age for marriage is nine for girls, fourteen for boys. The law has occasionally been exploited by pedophiles, who marry poor young girls from the provinces, use and then abandon them. In 2000 the Iranian Parliament voted to raise the minimum age for girls to fourteen, but this year, a legislative oversight body dominated by traditional clerics vetoed the move. An attempt by conservatives to abolish Yemen’s legal minimum age of fifteen for girls failed, but local experts say it is rarely enforced anyway. (The onset of puberty is considered an appropriate time for a marriage to be consummated.)[iv]

The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) reports that over half of the girls in Afghanistan and Bangladesh are married before they reach the age of eighteen.[v] In early 2002, researchers in refugee camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan found half the girls married by age thirteen. In an Afghan refugee camp, more than two out of three second-grade girls were either married or engaged, and virtually all the girls who were beyond second grade were already married. One ten-year-old was engaged to a man of sixty.[vi]

This is the price that women have paid throughout Islamic history, and continue to pay, for Muhammad’s status as “an excellent example of conduct” (Qur’an 33:21).

Of course, in this as with the other instances I have adduced, other Islamic authorities differ. Some claim that in repeating the traditions from Bukhari, I am perpetuating misunderstandings – despite the manifest fact that these “misunderstandings” are quite widespread in the Islamic world. If they are indeed misunderstandings, the problem lies with Sahih Bukhari, which is very ancient and essentially canonical, not with my book, which has been available for less than three months and will be forgotten before too long.

But is Sahih Bukhari banned in Pakistan? Of course not.

4. Finally, in my book I explain why it is today virtually impossible to prove rape in lands that follow the dictates of the Sharia. False adultery accusations against Aisha led ultimately to the requirement that four male Muslim witnesses must be produced in order to establish a crime of adultery or related indiscretions. In cases of sexual misbehavior, four male witnesses are required to establish the deed — in accord with a revelation that came to Muhammad to exonerate his youthful wife (Qur’an 24:13).[vii] This requirement allows unscrupulous men to commit rape with impunity: as long as they deny the charge and there are no witnesses, they get off scot-free, because the victim’s account is inadmissible. Even worse, if a woman accuses a man of rape, she may end up incriminating herself. If the required male witnesses can’t be found, the victim’s charge of rape becomes an admission of adultery.

That accounts for the grim fact that as many as seventy-five percent of the women in prison in Pakistan are, in fact, behind bars for the crime of being a victim of rape.[viii] Several high-profile cases in Nigeria in recent years have also revolved around rape accusations being turned around by Islamic authorities into charges of fornication, resulting in death sentences that were only modified after international pressure.[ix]

Because they’re rooted in Qur’anic dictates, such abuses are extraordinarily resistant to criticism and reform. Witness the recent situation in Pakistan, the same country where my book has just been banned. The new Women’s Protection Act has reclassified the crime of rape so that it can be prosecuted according to modern standards of evidence and testimony, without relying on the four male witnesses required by the Qur’an. But Muslim hardliners have staged protests against the new law, calling it “un-Islamic, immoral and unconstitutional.” And they have a case, based on Qur’an 24:13 and the story of Aisha’s exoneration.

And thats all even before we get to:

• The stoning of women for adultery – a tradition abrogated from the Koran, but preserved in the Hadiths.
• Honour killings – a cultural degeneracy, unmitigated by Islamic tradition due to its misogyny.
• Female genital mutilation – another cultural degeneracy OKed by Muhhamad, as long as you “don’t cut too deeply” or “don’t overdo it”.
• The instruction to beat one’s rebellious wife in the Koran.

The first two reasons that I omitted in Robert Spencer’s list above, by the way, relate to the 3 stages of Jihad, as directed by Muhhamad (“conversion to Islam, subjugation without equality of rights with Muslims under the rule of Islamic law, or war”) and abrogation in the Koran, the consequence of which is that the later “war verses” override the earlier “peaceful” verses.

I’d love to hear Rep. Ellison’s views on all of the above. Which camp will he belong to? Will he say its all just a big misunderstanding? Claim ignorance? Or flatly declare that the example of the Prophet Muhhamad was perfect and the instructions of Allah are not open to interpretation? Will he fade away in embarassment perhaps or explode in outrage? All heard and seen before. All going pretty much nowhere.

Drawing attention to the letter to Rep. Ellison is a 910 Group campaign and was originally the of idea of No Apology.

Michael Totten’s latest post continues his excellent series on his recent visit to Lebanon, where he did a fair bit of travelling around and spoke to Lebanese representatives from a variety of faiths and political factions. Something that two Lebanese men, who drove Michael and his friend Noah around South Lebanon, said in this post jumped right out at me today:

“We have been screaming about this conflict for 30 years now,” Henry said as he dealt himself a hand of Solitaire from a deck of cards in his pocket. “But no one ever listened to us. Not until September 11. Now you know how we feel all the time. You have to keep up the pressure. You can never let go, not for one day, one hour, not for one second. The minute you let go, Michael, they will fight back and get stronger. This is the problem with your foreign policy.”

“Since 1975 we have been fighting for the free world,” Said said. “We are on the front lines. Why doesn’t the West understand this? America can withdraw from Iraq, you can go back to Oregon, but we are stuck here. We have to stay and live with what happens.”

These two understand the crossroads we are now facing. These are the kind of men that would be abandoned in their fight for freedom should we pull out of Iraq and allow Syria, Iran and Hezbollah have their way in the Middle East. These men don’t have the luxury of the cut-and-run option. And they know that whats at stake is not oil, empire, the support of the Jewish lobby or Haliburton contracts. They are the front line now. Many people in the West need to realise that one day the front line could be their neighbourhood, if itsn’t already. Unless, that is, we keep up that pressure.

Sean Scallon understands the appeal of Islam and Islamism to certain alienated subgroups on both the far Left and the far Right rather well:

[In the 21st century] growth in Islam will come from Third World immigration of course. But it will also come from white converts as well and they will come from two sources of thought.

Islam always has had an ideological appeal to those on the far left and right. To a cultural Marxist, Islam is the God that hasn’t failed (unlike Communism), at least not yet. Its diverse, multicultural following and the fact that it is the religion of the Third Word i.e. it was founded there and expanded there outside of Europe and the West, makes it a perfect vehicle for cultural upheaval and egalitarianism. Marxism derided religion which limited its appeal while Islam is a religion and has mass appeal. And within an adversarial culture, converting to Islam becomes the perfect vehicle to shock one’s parents and friends and peers. Indeed, Jean-Paul Sartre himself became more and more fascinated with Islam as the communist left declined in his later years. This has more of chance of happening with the nominal baptized or secular Christian than anyone else. Think of John Walker Lindh, the Marin County, California teenager who got fed up with empty secularist lifestyle of parents and neighbors and converted to Islam and joined the Taliban in Afghanistan, and you’ll understand the type. Since 9-11 and since George Bush II give Islam his stamp of approval by calling it a “religion of peace,” there’s been a growing study of Islam within in the media and with others who are curious to know more about it. Such study, no doubt, will increase the size of the pool of converts for Islam within the U.S.

On the other side, Nazis have always appreciated Islam’s marshal spirit and ascetic, non-bourgeois lifestyle along with its ability to submit the will of the mass towards one deity or person. They found it far superior to Christian piety which they found to be nothing more than religion for wimps, not the supermen they were supposed to be. Those who are not inclined towards Nazism still find these same qualities admirable, along with Islam’s male-dominated patriarchy. Women and men do not pray together. If you are a fellow who is unchurched right at the moment because you think the modern church in the U.S. is too female dominated and has no place for you, then Islam may be your scene. Think of [the] guy who used to attend Promise Keeper rallies in football stadiums and spent his time crying on the shoulder of another guy while being told what an awful person he was. When he realized the whole thing was nothing more than a religious version of 1990s male bonding without the tom-tom drums, campfires and war paint and when he realized his wife and her friends were laughing their heads off at him down at the solon, then you’ll know the kind of person I’m talking about. In fact the crisis of the maleless church has become such a concern that, according to religious news reports, that certain pastors have gotten to the point of parking Harley Davidson motorcycles out front of the entryways of their churches and putting on football uniforms and using football metaphors to attract males back into the pews again. But Islam’s call may be more enticing than that just more passing Christian fads.

Examples are fun, so here’s a couple more.

The alliance between Hezbollah (and Iran) and the far Left in Lebanon and around the world is a great example of the first trend described above.

A “story” (read: propaganda piece) in the Montreal Gazette, Dec 10th, by Maria Abi-Habib:

Ibtisam Jamaleddine stood in the room of her dead son, Maxim. Maxim was 18 years old when he was mistaken for a fighter and killed by an Israeli missile during this summer’s war between Israel and Hezbollah.

Pictures of Che Guevara and soccer players as well as a plaque dedicated to Shiite Islam’s most revered imam, Ali, adorn the walls of his room. They tell a story unknown in the West, of the complex nature of forces that fought Israel last summer.

During the war, U.S. President George W. Bush pitted the conflict as one fuelled by “Islamo-fascism,” pushed by Hezbollah, the Party of God. But fighting alongside Hezbollah was an older, more seasoned resistance movement – the Lebanese Communist Party, which allied with the Islamic party for the first time and showed its members that Islam and communism can complement each other.

For Maxim’s mother, the alliance of these two ideologies was natural and the pictures in her son’s room of a communist martyr and a Muslim hero attest to that.

She said her son wasn’t religious. She said she sees her son as part of a line of resistance fighters “that began with Imam Ali and went to Che and then to Maxim. It’s one lineage of struggle.”

The nature of forces and alliances in Lebanon may be complex, but this is hardly an example of that complexity. Communism and Islamism in bed together makes perfect sense, as both are totalitarian fantasies of a utopia, which, at every attempt at implementation turns into its hellish opposite. (Isn’t it hilarious when Muslims counter real-world examples of the failings of Islam by saying the examples don’t apply to “true” Islam because “there is currently no ‘true’ Islamic state in existance”? Gee, I wonder why?) Neither is the above alliance happening “for the first time”. Hezbollah and Lebanese Communist Party members have been running on voting tickets together in Lebanese elections ever since Hezbollah was forced to change its image from sectarian terrorist militia to a political party of “resistance” at the end of the civil war in the early nineties.

Here’s a couple of recent happy snaps of the happy couple:

“Supporters of the Lebanese Communist Party wave a party flag last Sunday during a peaceful sit-in organized by Hezbollah in Beirut.” according to the Montreal Gazette

Dec 2006, Hezbollocks-led protest in Beirut – A drop of Red in a sea of Yellow and Orange.

And if you think that a portrait of Che Guevara on the wall next to an Islamic one is an anomaly, think again:

Prime Minister of Chechnya is not a man to be messed with, especially if you work for him.

At the age of just 30, Ramzan Kadyrov counts the Russian President Vladimir Putin as a close ally, wields enormous power in his war-ravaged world-infamous republic, and is the object of a Stalin-style personality cult.

[..] He has advocated polygamy, banned gambling, and clamped down on the sale of alcohol – all policies that would cause a riot if implemented elsewhere in Russia.

[..]Inside, Kadyrov’s office resembles the boardroom of a multinational corporation, albeit with a few significant differences. The federal Russian flag stands alongside the green flag of the Chechen republic, and from one wall, a framed black-and-white picture of Che Guevara stares down. Kadyrov clearly identifies with the Argentine who made his name in Cuba, since his fan club (yes, he does have a fan club) often waves aloft stencilled posters of the Chechen leader wearing Che’s beret and adopting the same uncompromising stare.

[..]A colourful portrait of a woman wearing a headscarf adorns another wall, presumably Kadyrov’s mother, and I notice at least two likenesses of his benefactor, Vladimir Putin.

Through the window, the green-topped minaret of a newly built mosque reaches up into the gloomy Grozny sky, a reminder that Kadyrov has styled himself as a devout Muslim and adopted elements of shariah for his regime.

Yep, you read correctly, a chunk of Russia is now partially implementing Sharia Law. But don’t get too carried away with that one – this is an elaborate and cynical exercise in sock-puppetry, not a naive subjugation to a creeping Islamification. This is Russia, not Sweden, and the Russia Empire has centuries of experience with “self-governing” Muslim populations within its borders. More importantly it has several centuries experience of being governed by Muslims – an experience permanantly etched into the national psyche and untempered by Western political correctness and one Russia will not be repeating any time soon (“scratch a Russian and you will find a Tartar”, goes a Russian proverb). And by soon I mean ever. I had a post on Islam and demographics in Russia in the works that I am thinking of posting in several smaller posts, largely in response to the “Russia is turning Muslim” silliness that swept the blogosphere recently. Chechnya is only a very small part of Russia, the Muslims of the North Caucasus are a very different breed to say the Tartars, who make up the biggest Muslim segment in Russia, and the whole Islamification-of-Russia line is a misfire. But I digress.

Now a quick look at the other end of the spectrum – the far right and Islamism. Its not called Islamo-Fascism for nothing, and if you need proof, look up the collaboration of Bosnian Muslims with the Nazis in World War 2. Look up the relationship between the Mufti of Jerusalem and Hitler. Look up the list of speakers at the recent Holocaust conference in Iran.

I’ll throw in just one more example though, that relates directly to the “Promise Keeper rally enthusiast” types Scallon is talking about:

Turning Muslim in Texas

Praying in Texas
George W Bush may be backed by Christian fundamentalists but in his home state of Texas, Islam is the latest big draw. The Bible belt is transferring its allegiance to the Qur’an because, for many erstwhile Christians, believe it or not, the church is too liberal.

Eric was a Baptist preacher before he became a Muslim 14 years ago. Now he prays five times a day – even in the middle of watching a football game. His wife, Karen, also a convert, is covered from head to toe in the traditional Muslim burka. Islam, says Eric, ‘is everything I wanted Christianity to be’.

The Bible belt is not about to turn into the Our’an belt, any more than Russia is about to turn into Russiastan, so don’t take the “transferring its allegiance” baloney above too seriously. But do check out the video for the comedy. You can watch the full 24-minute documentary, “Turning Muslim in Texas”, on Google Video. Here it is:

See also my previous posts on Islam’s useful idiots on the Left.

The MEMRI blog on a Turkish Daily report about honour killings:

According to the Turkish Daily News website, in a report on Turkey’s family protection laws, the Turkish daily Radikal enumerated some of the 18 reported “honor killings” that had taken place in Turkey since August 2006 including:

1. A widow who started working at a bus firm and was shot to preserve her family’s honor
2. One whose husband cut her throat for “taking too many showers”
3. An 18-year-old girl killed by her brother for talking to her boyfriend on the phone
4. Another strangled by her husband in front of the couple’s three-year-old son because she prepared breakfast late.

The MEMRI blog also has some statistics on who the Turkish public views as their enemies and friends:

The Turkish daily Vakit has published the results of a survey on Turks’ views of Israel and the U.S. The paper said that the survey, by the Başkent Research Company, was conducted through face-to-face interviews with 1,512 people in 15 Turkish cities. According to the survey, 91.5% of the respondents saw Israel as an enemy, while 77.1% felt the same about the U.S. Respondents also considered Armenia (88.7%) and Denmark (85.2%) to be enemies.

Countries viewed by respondents as “friends” of Turkey were Afghanistan (82.7%), Palestine (92.7%), Pakistan (90.5%), Indonesia (75.8%), Iran (70.2%) and Egypt (63.2%).

The survey found U.S. President George Bush, followed by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, to be the most unpopular world leaders for Turks.

Ironies abound in these numbers. The Turks may see the Palestinians as their best friends, but I somehow doubt the Palestinians would return the sentiments, as they have a somewhat different view of their past under the Ottoman Empire than their former overlords, Caliphate or not. Iran and Turkey have a recent history of enmity, while the US is of course supposed to be their good friend and ally. How absurd Turkey’s membership in NATO seems in light of these numbers. Afghanistan is after all the only place where NATO troops are currently engaged in a war and something tells me these Turks are batting for the other team. Denmark also deserves special mention – the only EU member in there making it into the top enemies list on the strength of the Danish cartoons alone.

Speaking of the EU, and membership thereof, these attitudes should find close correlation in most of it, so perhaps there is a chance for Turkey’s EU hopes coming to fruition after all?

Or not.

(h/t Ryan Northcott)

In non-Hajj-related news, I am going on vacation mid next week for a couple of weeks, and will not be near a computer for most of that time. I won’t have time for much posting in the next week either, so its looking like this blog won’t be back in full force for another three weeks or so.

Anyone looking for something to read, I’ve recently been enjoying Michael Totten’s posts on the developing situation in Lebanon, where he visitted in December. Bill Roggio’s recent coverage of the war in Somalia as well as other global Jihad hotspots has been great also.

For a list of some fantastic blogs you should be reading, have a read of this interview, where Hugh Hewitt hammers to pieces Joseph Rago for his article in the Opinion Journal, in which Rago lamely attempted to write off the whole blogosphere as somehow irrelevant. In the interview, which is quite entertaining in itself, Hugh presents a lists of worthy blogs to set the stage for their discussion. Take a look, you’re bound to come across a couple of new gems.

And check out the new 910 Group movement, of which this blog is now a part. Blogs to read, forum to chat in, projects to be a part of it. Get into it.