<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>FrontPage Magazine &#187; Ned May</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/author/ned-may/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2014 07:56:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>The Vatican Falls for the &#8216;Interfaith&#8217; Scam</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/ned-may/the-vatican-falls-for-the-interfaith-scam/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-vatican-falls-for-the-interfaith-scam</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/ned-may/the-vatican-falls-for-the-interfaith-scam/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jun 2014 04:10:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ned May]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Catholic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dialogue]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[imam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[interfaith]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[muslim brotherhood]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pope]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prayer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prayer of peace]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Vatican]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=234907</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Unmasking the Muslim Brotherhood's ruse. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/20140617_vatikanimame1402954514108.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-234908" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/20140617_vatikanimame1402954514108.jpg" alt="20140617_vatikanimame1402954514108" width="271" height="229" /></a>On June 8, 2014 — Pentecost Sunday — the Vatican hosted an “interfaith event” that included prayers by Christian priests, a Jewish rabbi, and a Muslim imam. The occasion was <a href="http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2014/06/06/Islamic-prayers-to-be-held-at-the-Vatican.html"><span style="color: #0433ff;">well-publicized in advance</span></a> by the Holy See as a “pause in politics” that would promote peace between the Israel and the Palestinians.</p>
<p>During his visit to Israel and the Palestinian Authority the previous month, Pope Francis had invited Israeli President Shimon Peres and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to attend the event. Both leaders accepted the invitation, and sat with the Pope while prayers were said and chanted in the Vatican garden.</p>
<p>The imam, however, went beyond the script that had been handed to the Vatican in advance. He included in his chanted prayer verses 284-286 of Sura 2 in the Koran, the last part of which calls for Allah to grant the Muslims victory over the infidels. His words were broadcast live to a television audience, but they were in Arabic, so most non-Muslim viewers had no idea what he had said.</p>
<p>This apparently included the Vatican hierarchy. When someone who <i>did</i> understand Arabic <a href="http://gatesofvienna.net/2014/06/the-vatican-and-islamic-prayer/"><span style="color: #0433ff;">pointed out what had happened</span></a>, a Vatican spokesman at first denied that any such thing had occurred. Those verses weren’t in the advance script — how could he possibly have said them? No Muslim, especially a respected imam, would ever go back on his word!</p>
<p>Later, when that story became untenable, the Vatican <a href="http://gatesofvienna.net/2014/06/taqiyya-vatican-style/"><span style="color: #0433ff;">soft-pedaled the added text</span></a>, saying that there was nothing really wrong with it. To further complicate matters, a <a href="http://gatesofvienna.net/2014/06/who-edited-the-tape/"><span style="color: #0433ff;">doctored tape</span></a> of the Arabic prayer was released in which the final part of verse 2:286 was edited out. It’s not clear who did the editing, but the altered version certainly did serve the interests of the Vatican.</p>
<p>With the help of <a href="http://vladtepesblog.com/"><span style="color: #0433ff;">Vlad Tepes</span></a>, I was able to track down a complete video of the prayer from an Arabic television channel and then have it translated (by a volunteer who prefers to remain anonymous) and subtitled. As far as I can determine, the imam’s name was never made public, either by the Vatican or the English-language Arab news sites. I’m told he’s Palestinian, and his distinctive headgear identifies him as having the authoritative credentials of Al-Azhar University:</p>
<p><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/DNnFQgGY25s" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></p>
<p>A German-speaking Jesuit priest, Fr. Felix Körner, made a valiant effort to demonstrate that 2:286 was in full accord with Christian doctrine, and was peaceful in intent. During <a href="http://gatesofvienna.net/2014/06/multiculturalism-in-religious-garb/"><span style="color: #0433ff;">an interview</span></a> he said (translated from the German by Rembrandt Clancy):</p>
<blockquote><p>“This verse, perhaps spontaneously selected by someone who then also recited the Koran from memory, actually fitted very well into the overall context of the Prayer for Peace! There are always three steps in the three religions: We recognise the Creator and praise Him, we recognise our guilt and confess it and we plead for the gift of peace. And all that comes out very beautifully in these three verses of the Koran.</p>
<p>[…]</p>
<p>“There is a certain parallel insofar as a quotation torn out of context is particularly easily misunderstood. And if one removes from the text only the reference to unbelievers, one can easily use it as a peg upon which to hang something and then say that an infringement has taken place here. On the other hand we have in this case a Koran recitation which pertains to someone who not only quotes, but recites, and who also says: what I am reciting here is also what I believe. And in the same breath he is also saying: We Muslims, as the Koran precisely tells us, <b>recognise the other religions with their prophets</b>. Therefore from the Muslim side, <b>there was by no means any deprecation or exclusion intended or expressed</b>. Rather it was said: We are bringing here a religious idea, one which welcomes and accepts you all, and naturally in certain Koranic way, tries to set things right again. But <b>there was nothing here which was meant to exclude or rebuff</b>; rather a Koran verse was recited, which is meant to express the highest respect and therefore can also be received as such.” [emphasis added]</p></blockquote>
<p>But is this interpretation true? Does Islam really “recognize the other religions with their prophets”? Was there really no “deprecation or exclusion intended”?</p>
<p>It’s always unwise to trust a non-Muslim’s interpretations of Islamic scripture and law. Our political are always telling us what Islam means — witness Boris Johnson, David Cameron, and George W. Bush — with less than complete credibility. Now we have a Jesuit priest telling us what Islam does and does not mean.</p>
<p>It’s also unwise to trust a Muslim cleric or spokesman when he explains Islam to a non-Muslim audience. There are very clear reasons for this skepticism, based in the Koran and the hadith (the sayings of Mohammed) and all major interpretations of Islamic law that are derived from those.</p>
<p>So how do we understand what happened at the Vatican on Pentecost Sunday?</p>
<p>We begin with this: last November a well-meaning Pope Francis issued a papal declaration, <a href="http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium.html"><span style="color: #0433ff;"><i>Evangelii Gaudium</i></span></a>, which said among other things that “our respect for true followers of Islam should lead us to avoid hateful generalisations, for authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence.”</p>
<p>Now we’re going to take the advice of Major (ret.) Stephen Coughlin, one of the foremost non-Muslim experts on Islamic law in the United States. If we want to understand Islamic law, Maj. Coughlin tells us: <i>“You must read things written by Muslims who are recognized in the Muslim community as experts in the topic they are writing about, and who are writing for a Muslim audience. If you fail to do that, you are not doing your job.”</i></p>
<p>Therefore, to provide context for the momentous events of June 8, the following information is instructive. It is derived from <i>’Umdat al-salik wa ’uddat al-nasik</i>, which is commonly referred to as <i>Reliance of the Traveller</i> when cited in English. This an authoritative source on Sunni Islamic law, because it is certified as such by Al-Azhar University in Cairo. There is no higher authority on Sunni Islamic doctrine than Al-Azhar; it is the closest equivalent to the Vatican that can be found in Islam.</p>
<p>Consider this passage from <i>Reliance of the Traveller</i>, chapter O, o9.0:</p>
<blockquote><p><i>Jihad</i> means to wage war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad.</p>
<p>[…]</p>
<p>The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus is such Koranic verses as:</p>
<p>•Fighting is prescribed for you (Koran 2:216)</p>
<p>•Slay them wherever you find them (Koran 4:89)</p>
<p>•Fight the idolators utterly (Koran 9:36)</p></blockquote>
<p>In o9.8, <i>Reliance of the Traveller</i> describes the objectives of jihad:</p>
<blockquote><p>The caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya, def: o11.4)… and the war continues until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax…</p></blockquote>
<p>Now it becomes clear that — contrary to what Fr. Körner said — Islam does indeed deprecate and exclude other religions, specifically including Judaism and Christianity. This deprecation and exclusion goes so far as to mandate warfare against those religions.</p>
<p>We should also bear in mind what Islamic law says about lying. In Book R “Holding One’s Tongue,” §r8.0 “Lying” at r8.2 “Permissible Lying,” <i>Reliance of the Traveller</i> cites the iconic Islamic legal jurist Imam Abu Hamid Ghazali:</p>
<blockquote><p>This is an explicit statement that lying is sometimes permissible for a given interest… When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (N: i.e., when the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible) and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory.</p></blockquote>
<p>To sum up: according to an authoritative manual of Islamic law certified by Al-Azhar University — the same University that accredited the imam who prayed at the Vatican — the devout Muslim is obligated to make war against Christians and Jews until they convert to Islam, submit and pay the poll tax, or die.</p>
<p>Since this goal is <i>obligatory</i>, it is also <i>obligatory</i> for the devout Muslim to lie to Christians and Jews about what his religion means, and what it intends, <i>if such lies help Islam achieve the final conquest.</i></p>
<p>This is why we are ill-advised to take Muslim spokesmen at their word when they describe the peaceful intentions of Islam.</p>
<p>Now hear what Maj. Stephen Coughlin has to say about what happened at the Vatican on Pentecost Sunday. He explains in great detail, using authoritative sources on Islamic law, what the imam was doing when he inserted those three extra verses into his prayer in the Vatican garden:</p>
<p><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/UFIF2HMcOYs" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></p>
<p>As you can see, Pope Francis and the leaders of the Catholic Church, not to mention the Jewish representatives from Israel, had the wool deftly pulled over their eyes by the Muslim Brotherhood.</p>
<p>The “interfaith” movement is a Muslim Brotherhood scam designed to soften up gullible Jews and Christians in advance of the inevitable Islamic victory.</p>
<p>The incident in the Vatican garden received very little Western media attention, even though it was one of the most important stories of the decade. We were all too busy paying attention to the more obvious jihad in Syria and Iraq, where Islam is reaching the same goal through fire and blood and slaughter.</p>
<p>What happened at the Vatican is understood (correctly) by Muslims as a great victory for Islam. Using stealth and deception, the Al-Azhar imam penetrated the innermost sanctum of Christendom and claimed it for the Umma.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/ned-may/the-vatican-falls-for-the-interfaith-scam/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>37</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff: Thoughts Before Trial</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/ned-may/elisabeth-sabaditsch-wolff-thoughts-before-trial/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=elisabeth-sabaditsch-wolff-thoughts-before-trial</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/ned-may/elisabeth-sabaditsch-wolff-thoughts-before-trial/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Dec 2011 04:06:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ned May]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[criticism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Free Speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trial]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=116431</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A decision in the case looms. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/esw-trial1.gif"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-116432" title="esw-trial1" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/esw-trial1.gif" alt="" width="375" height="249" /></a></p>
<p>Tomorrow morning, Tuesday December 20th, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff will learn the results of her appeal to Austria’s highest court.</p>
<p>As described in this space a few weeks ago (<em>See </em><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2011/11/30/the-political-persecution-of-elisabeth-sabaditsch-wolff/"><em>Part 1</em></a><em>, </em><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2011/12/01/the-political-persecution-of-elisabeth-sabaditsch-wolff-2/"><em>Part 2</em></a><em> and </em><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2011/12/02/the-political-persecution-of-elisabeth-sabaditsch-wolff-3/"><em>Part 3</em></a>), Elisabeth was charged last year with “denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion” for asserting that “Mohammed had a thing for little girls.” In February of this year she was convicted, and will have to pay a fine of up to €480. If she refuses to pay the fine, she may spend a maximum of two months in jail.</p>
<p>The court did not contest the truth of Mohammed’s marriage to a six-year-old, nor the fact that the Prophet of Islam had consummated the marriage when his bride was nine. The judge could hardly disagree with these facts, since they are confirmed by authoritative scholars in all branches of Islam.</p>
<p>No, Elisabeth was convicted <em>despite</em> the truth of what she said. She was found guilty because her words were deemed offensive to Muslims. As we all know by now, the truth is no defense when Muslims are offended. Anyone who offends a Muslim in Modern Multicultural Austria now risks criminal prosecution.</p>
<p>On Tuesday she will learn whether the judge in the higher court is a man of integrity. Common sense would tell him that the case against Elisabeth was a farrago of justice, and should be thrown out on the merits. But common sense is sorely lacking these days in Europe.</p>
<p>Elisabeth has been pondering the legal nightmare she has been trapped in for the last two years, and sends the following meditation on the day before she learns the verdict in her appeal:</p>
<blockquote><p><strong>Thoughts Before Trial</strong></p>
<p>Tis the season to be… What?</p>
<p>For some people it may well be the season to be jolly. For me, it is the season to be hopeful.</p>
<p>Once again I am in the midst of preparing for what may well be a watershed concerning freedom of speech and opinion within the European Union. The trial’s outcome could shape the limits on permissible speech under secular law. My conviction earlier this year implicitly used religious law — in this case, Sharia law — in its arguments.</p>
<p>This is how low our Western societies and their political and legal representatives have stooped in recent years: one wonders whether religious law actually trumps secular law. Am I, a concerned citizen, allowed to voice my alarm that Mohammed’s actions vis-à-vis his child-bride Aisha — marriage at the age of six, consummation at the age of nine — are emulated by devout Muslims here in Austria, in Europe, in the Western world, who, according to the teachings of the Koran, are to follow their prophet’s every example?</p>
<p>Here are some of the points that my lawyer and I will raise on Tuesday:</p>
<p>I. The court of first instance (lower court) ruled that while it accepted that Mohammed had sex with Aisha when he was 56 and she was nine years old, the judge decided that what I said, namely the above, was <em>untrue</em>. The judge’s findings, however, are incorrect, as we know. The problem with this reasoning with respect to §188, denigration of religious teachings, is as follows: one cannot hold someone [Mohammed] in contempt if the referenced actions are objectively contemptuous, and factually accurate. I could not have held Mohammed in contempt, since <em>I spoke the truth</em>.</p>
<p>II. The lower court also decided that I had <em>intentionally</em> called Mohammed’s behavior “pedophilia” to denigrate Islam and cause offense. This is ridiculous and false. When I was grilled by the judge, I told her that I believe the truth could never be denigrating, and that what I said was covered by my right to freedom of speech. Thus, §188 cannot be applied. The truth cannot be denigrating.</p>
<p>III. The lower court spoke of my use of the word “pedophilia”, one that I used incorrectly to describe Mohammed’s behavior. Because the audience in my seminars was composed of “ordinary” people, there is no need for the use or knowledge of the clinical definition of the term. Thus, the audience knew what I was referring to when I used the term “pedophilia”, namely that an adult, Mohammed, had sex with an underage person, Aisha.</p>
<p>IV. The lower court explained that child marriage was common not only in Islam (note: it is still common!), but also in European royal courts. This is completely false: When children were married to each other, they did not have sex; they were married to secure the royal dynasty.</p>
<p>V. The lower court also convicted me for saying the Mohammed had “a lot of women”, which is another truthful statement.</p>
<p>VI. With respect to freedom of speech:</p>
<p><strong>Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights</strong></p>
<p>Article 10 — Freedom of expression</p>
<ol>
<li>Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.</li>
<li>The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.</li>
</ol>
<p>Everyone is guaranteed this right. Referring to paragraph 1, it is permitted without any restrictions <em>to impart truthful fact</em>. Referring to paragraph 2, it is important to note that freedom of speech can be restricted by the state if deemed “necessary” within a democratic society. In other words, <em>the burden of proof lies with the state</em>.</p>
<p>I. The lower court accused me of excessively assessing Mohammed’s behavior. Even if the lower court’s opinion is correct, namely that the charge of pedophilia was used to denigrate and that this opinion is excessively harsh because Mohammed was “only” married to a minor, my lawyer and I say the following: Entering a marriage with a six-year-old is perverse according to today’s understanding. Even if it is “just” a marriage (and not a consummation), then simply the act of marriage makes him an object of contempt.</p>
<p>II. The right to freedom of speech (Art. 10 Human Rights Convention) and the right to religious freedom are equal before the law. The guarantees as found in Article 9 must not be understood as a protective shield against criticism and different opinions. The opinions I voiced during my seminars did not interfere with the right of Muslims to freedom of conscience, religion, and thought.</p>
<p>If one were to understand my opinions to be impairing the religious peace, the consequence would be that the state would have to accept child marriages that are also consummated, otherwise the state could be accused of impairing the religious peace of the Islamic faith community. This is the result of Article 9, where “subject to certain restrictions” that are “in accordance with law” and “necessary in a democratic society” is deemed to mean the necessity for tolerance and respect for different beliefs, i.e. the tolerance of the belief that child marriage is permissible.</p>
<p>There are certain reasons to be cautiously optimistic about the outcome of Tuesday’s hearing. I can assure all of you that I will not waver in my stance: I am not guilty, I cannot be guilty of speaking the truth, even if the truth is unpalatable to some people. And nothing but a full acquittal will be acceptable. I will not give up, and I will never give in to sharia law.</p>
<p>Please continue with your prayers and support. This is not about me; this is about <em>all of us</em>. In order for Western Civilization to survive, we must fight for our basic, God-given rights, the most important of which is freedom of speech.</p>
<p>May freedom prevail!</p>
<p><em> — Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff</em></p></blockquote>
<p>A team from the European branch of the International Civil Liberties Alliance will be live-blogging Elisabeth’s trial tomorrow. Her case will be heard very early in the morning American time — at about 3am to 5am EST — but if you are up that early (or late), check in with <a href="http://english.savefreespeech.org/">Save Free Speech</a> or <a href="http://tundratabloids.com/">Tundra Tabloids</a> for real-time reports in English.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/ned-may/elisabeth-sabaditsch-wolff-thoughts-before-trial/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>22</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Political Persecution of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/ned-may/the-political-persecution-of-elisabeth-sabaditsch-wolff-3/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-political-persecution-of-elisabeth-sabaditsch-wolff-3</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/ned-may/the-political-persecution-of-elisabeth-sabaditsch-wolff-3/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Dec 2011 04:33:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ned May]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[european union]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Freedom of speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Muhammad]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=114362</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The verdict is delivered.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div id="attachment_114364" style="width: 385px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/FPM-ESW03-1.gif"><img class="size-full wp-image-114364" title="FPM-ESW03-(1)" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/FPM-ESW03-1.gif" alt="" width="375" height="253" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Photo credit: Aeneas </p></div>
<p><em>Editor’s note: The following is the third installment of a series of articles following activist Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff’s battle against her own government, as they proceed to prosecute her for disseminating the truth about Islam. Click the following to read </em><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2011/11/30/the-political-persecution-of-elisabeth-sabaditsch-wolff/"><em>Part I</em></a><em> and </em><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2011/12/01/the-political-persecution-of-elisabeth-sabaditsch-wolff-2/"><em>Part II</em></a><em>. </em></p>
<p>When court reconvened in February, events moved swiftly to a close.</p>
<p><strong>Judge: </strong><em>The integration of Muslims is surely a question of particular public interest — you are allowed to be critical — but not incitement of hatred</em></p>
<p><em>[judge states the permitted utterances]</em></p>
<p><em>The language used in the seminars were not inciting hatred, but the utterances regarding Muhammad and pedophilia were punishable.</em></p>
<p><em>“Pedophilia” is factually incorrect, since pedophilia is a sexual preference which solely or mainly is directed towards children. This does not apply to Mohammad. He was still married to Aisha when she was 18.</em></p>
<p>The verdict:</p>
<p>On the count of “incitement to hatred”: <strong>Not guilty.</strong></p>
<p>On the count of “denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion”: <strong>Guilty.</strong></p>
<p>The defendant was sentenced to pay a €480 fine.</p>
<p><strong>Judge: </strong><em>Did you understand the sentence?</em></p>
<p><em>[discontent in court]</em></p>
<p>The judge second-guessed the Qur’an, noting that Aisha was 18 years old when Muhammad died, which is factual, based on the hadith. The fact that he did not divorce her after she reached her majority proved that Muhammad had no exclusive desire for underage girls; he was also attracted to somewhat older females. Therefore he was not a pedophile.</p>
<p>By implication, of course, the child marriages that are so prevalent in fundamentalist Islamic countries cannot be legally categorized as “pedophilia” either.</p>
<p>Elisabeth said: “This is a sad day for my daughter and all girls.”</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">————————————————</p>
<p>By the time the verdict was handed down, it had become obvious that the court was absolutely determined that Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff must be found guilty of <em>something</em>. The playing of the tapes — which showed that many of the recorded statements that had been used against Elisabeth had in fact been uttered privately — made the prosecution realize that the original charge would never hold up. To attain the desired outcome, the judge added a second charge of her own devising. A juridical move of this sort would have been unimaginable (and illegal) in the United States and many other countries, but it is quite legal in Austria.</p>
<p>The charge on which Elisabeth was eventually convicted was ludicrous on the face of it. Not only did she never say that Muhammad’s actions constituted “pedophilia”, but Muhammad’s actions — which were undisputed by the court — included having sex with a nine-year-old girl. <em>If</em> she had said what she was accused of, it would have been nothing more than the simple truth, and unexceptional from the standpoint of any normal person.</p>
<p>But the folks who run the Austrian system of “justice” are not normal people. They concocted the absurd rationalization that remaining married to the little girl past the age of 18 meant that Muhammad did not exclusively target children with his sexual attentions; hence he was not a “pedophile” by the strict psychiatric definition. Thus Elisabeth was wrong, even though she did not say it, and even though no ordinary citizen would disagree with her if she <em>had</em> said it.</p>
<p>Interestingly enough, this farrago of justice was made possible by the recognition of Islam as a state religion in 1912 through the law <a href="http://www.ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&amp;Gesetzesnummer=10009179">Islamgesetz</a>, which had as its<a href="http://www.integrationsfonds.at/fileadmin/Integrationsfond/5_wissen/Islam_Reader/Islamreader_Zsfg_E_Bearbeitung.pdf">primary purpose</a> the full integration of Bosnia-Herzegovina into the Austrian Empire. When Austria lost Bosnia in 1918, the law became irrelevant, but it has remained on the books until this day.</p>
<p>What might the long-term consequences of the verdict? As <a href="http://www.europenews.dk/">Henrik Ræder Clausen</a> <a href="http://europenews.dk/en/node/40340">wrote at the time</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>Fortunately law is logical, and thus one can rightfully deduce some consequences from the verdict:</p>
<p>1. It can constitute a criminal offence to use a label wrongly, even if that usage is in line with how it is applied by the general public.</p>
<p>2. The judge takes it as proven that Muhammad had a lasting sexual relationship with a minor. Strangely, she considers it an illegal denigration to apply the label ‘paedophilia’ to this behaviour.</p>
<p>3. As the law is only concerned with “Religious teachings”, rather than “Founders of religion”, “Behaviour of religious persons” or similar things, this verdict must imply that the life and conduct of Muhammad — including his sexual conduct — constitute an integral part of the “Religious teachings” in Islam. This interpretation is in line with Qur’an 33:21 and fundamentalist readings of Islam.</p>
<p>4. Under Austrian law, Islam has a remarkable degree of protection from criticism, and this verdict extents this protection to Muhammad, who is now protected from criticism. Other religions, say Buddhism, do not enjoy a similar protection of their teachings or founders.</p>
<p>[…]</p>
<p>That the example of Muhammad is used to justify child marriages even today is a fact that seems to have escaped the attention of the judge. Reports about child brides and their aged husbands now routinely appear in the Western press, but even though we hear these stories over and over, few seem willing to stand up for the rights of these minor girls. Even the sheikhs, the persons learned in Islamic law, do not take action or in any way use their authority to stop child marriages.</p>
<p>That the life and example of Muhammad in its entirety should constitute “Religious teachings”, protected from criticism under Austrian law, is a notion so absurd that it cannot be permitted to stand.</p></blockquote>
<p>The precedent established by Elisabeth’s case would imply that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritzl_case">Josef Fritzl</a>, the Austrian man who began sexually abusing his daughter when she was 11, fathered her children, and kept her a prisoner for 24 years, <em>was not a pedophile, because their incestuous relationship continued after the victim was 18.</em></p>
<p>Was this what the judge intended when she handed down the verdict in Elisabeth’s case?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/ned-may/the-political-persecution-of-elisabeth-sabaditsch-wolff-3/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>8</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Political Persecution of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/ned-may/the-political-persecution-of-elisabeth-sabaditsch-wolff-2/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-political-persecution-of-elisabeth-sabaditsch-wolff-2</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/ned-may/the-political-persecution-of-elisabeth-sabaditsch-wolff-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Dec 2011 04:00:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ned May]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Austria]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Free Speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sharia]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=114169</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The media does its part to stir up the witch-hunt. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div id="attachment_114172" style="width: 385px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/ESW-alt.gif"><img class="size-full wp-image-114172" title="ESW-alt" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/ESW-alt.gif" alt="" width="375" height="255" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Photo credit: Henrik Ræder Clausen (http://www.europenews.dk/)</p></div>
<p><em>Editor’s note: The following is the second installment of a series of articles following activist Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff’s battle against her own government, as they proceed to prosecute her for disseminating the truth about Islam. To read Part I, click </em><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2011/11/30/the-political-persecution-of-elisabeth-sabaditsch-wolff/"><em>here</em></a><em>.</em></p>
<p>Just before Christmas, an article about Elisabeth appeared in <a href="http://www.wienerin.at/">Wienerin</a>, a glossy Austrian magazine similar to <em>Vanity Fair</em>. Some translated excerpts:</p>
<blockquote><p><em>She is said to have incited hate against Muslims, and is before the court on a charge of incitement. But even a conviction will not silence Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff. S. M. Steinitz accompanied the new figurehead of the Islam critics to Copenhagen. And witnessed how Sabaditsch-Wolff made her trial a manifesto — and gained in political influence.</em></p>
<p>The prosecutor apparently did not consider it necessary to prepare for the trial. No, he said, he had no questions for the defendant. The tape recording of her comments, the basis for the charge against Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, 39, he had only heard “in excerpts.” On this tape, covertly recorded by a reporter in the fall of 2009, can be heard how Sabaditsch-Wolff — during her seminar “The Fundamentals of Islam” — says to a participant, among other things, “Cardinals rape in spite of their religion. Muslims rape because of their religion.” Sponsor of the seminar: the Freedom Education Institute. A charge was laid after a report appeared in the weekly magazine, NEWS.</p>
<p>A year later in Room 31of the Vienna Regional Court: the prosecutor seems confident of success, almost bored. Even the onlookers do not doubt that a verdict will be reached quickly: Sabaditsch-Wolff — guilty of incitement and denigration of religious doctrines. Like Susanne Winter, the FPÖ representative who was convicted two years ago because of her comments about the founder of Islam. (“In today’s system, this Muhammad is a child molester.”)</p>
<p>But it was different this time.</p>
<p>[…]</p>
<p>The charge of incitement is the high point of her career as a provocateur thus far. Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff devotes up to ten hours a day to her campaign, prepares speeches and seminars, confers by e-mail and skype with allies all over the world. A look at her life history could offer an answer to the Why: As the daughter of an Austrian diplomat, she experienced, at age six, the takeover of the ayatollahs in Iran. “These shouting figures in their black robes, the palpable fear of the religious police in the streets — all that unsettled me greatly.” Years later, she was working in the Austrian embassy in Kuwait when Iraqi troops marched in. The embassy employees became hostages of Saddam, and were allowed to leave the country only after weeks of diplomatic negotiations. Sabaditsch-Wolff treated the trauma of her captivity in the book “I Was Saddam’s Hostage.”</p>
<p>Later she returned to Kuwait, then worked in Libya after that. “Life in Islamic countries is terrible,” she maintains. “… And the Muslims are the first victims of this ideology. They should be freed from their religion.” Does she really believe that Islamization is threatening Europe? “It is already fully underway. And if we do nothing, Europe will go under.”</p>
<p><strong>The Network</strong></p>
<p>Copenhagen, a few days later. Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, invited by the Free Press Society to a conference in the Danish parliament on the topic “Freedom of Expression,” was introduced as a “martyr for freedom of speech.” The guest list reads like the Who’s Who of European rightist parties: Jimmie Åkesson, head of the Sweden Democrats, who this year managed to enter the Swedish parliament with a controversial ad (burka-wearing women with baby carriages scaring an old woman off of welfare support). Peter Skaarup, foreign policy spokesman for the Danish People’s Party, is also there. Then too, René Stadtkewitz, founder of the German party Die Freiheit, modeled on the example of Geert Wilders’ Netherlands party of the same name [in Dutch]. He also intended to come, but had to cancel, at the last minute. “He is watching my trial with great interest,” says Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, who had met Wilders in Berlin in October. “He himself is accused of incitement. It’s crazy how many of us they want to get.”</p>
<p>She is greeted as a friend by the politicians. The paying public too, which has come to see Sabaditsch-Wolff live, is happy. “I know you from the internet. You are Elisabeth from Austria,” says an elderly lady. “You are a heroine!” shouts another. “Elisabeth from Austria” is a web celebrity. On more than forty connected websites she is celebrated as a “free speech advocate,” as a “fighter for freedom of speech.” On the website set up especially for her —<a href="http://savefreespeech.org/">savefreespeech.org</a> — donations are requested, for her trial, which she will pursue “if it is necessary, all the way to The European Court of Human Rights.”</p>
<p>[…]</p>
<p>The career of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff continues. Next, she and [Heinz-Christian Strache, leader of the Austrian Freedom Party] are invited to a series of speeches in Canada. And the spear tip of the USA rightist conservatives, Sarah Palin, has already become interested in the troop. “I appreciate your work,” she sends a message, “and I look forward to meeting you soon.” “Global politics are being pursued,” Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff declares. Astounded follow-up: “And I am right in the middle of it.”</p>
<p>[…]</p>
<p>This is not the “housewife with an unusual hobby”, as she has been represented until now. More like a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Confronted with this picture, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff laughs. “The wolf has had a bad image for a long time. Even so, it is a very useful animal: in its territory, the wolf maintains the balance of the species.”</p></blockquote>
<p>When the trial reconvened in January, the tapes of the seminars were played back. In the process the defense was able to discuss the Muslim Brotherhood and its extensive political influence within Austria and the rest of Europe. Elisabeth explained the Brotherhood’s desire to implement religious rule (shariah) and its support for terrorism to attain this end. She quoted the hadith — what Muhammad did and said — as the ideal for pious Muslims and the foundation for Islamic law.</p>
<p>Her summary: “There is no Islam without Shariah; the two cannot be separated. Shariah-based societies have been known for many centuries, and still exist today. The aim is to establish a social order identical to that decreed by Muhammad, which he exemplified. Islamic radicals today retain the same goal: to implement shariah as widely as possible, ideally throughout the world.”</p>
<p>She quoted the Qur’an to support her assertions.</p>
<p>Next she discussed <em>taqiyya</em> — the Islamically-mandated obligation of sacred lying in furtherance of the cause of Islam. The Qur’an, Bukhari’s authoritative hadith, and Muslim scriptural references all support the concept, which is fully described in Islamic law. She said that the idea of religiously-sanctioned lying is difficult for our politicians to handle.</p>
<p>Concerning the charges, the judge discussed Elisabeth’s statement that the conduct of Muhammad is exemplary for Muslims, including the problems raised by the scriptural reference to Muhammad’s marriage to a six-year-old girl. What exactly that would be called today, if not pedophilia?</p>
<p>Later in the day the judge, at her own discretion, announced the addition of the second charge: “denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion.” Elisabeth’s lawyer was not prepared for this, and asked for the trial to be adjourned. The judge scheduled the next session for February 15th.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/ned-may/the-political-persecution-of-elisabeth-sabaditsch-wolff-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>18</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Political Persecution of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/ned-may/the-political-persecution-of-elisabeth-sabaditsch-wolff/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-political-persecution-of-elisabeth-sabaditsch-wolff</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/ned-may/the-political-persecution-of-elisabeth-sabaditsch-wolff/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov 2011 04:04:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ned May]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Austria]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[counter-jihad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hate Speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jihad]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=114056</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[One counter-jihadist's fight to preserve the dwindling principle of free speech in Europe.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div id="attachment_114057" style="width: 385px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/ESW4-500.gif"><img class="size-full wp-image-114057" title="ESW4-500" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/ESW4-500.gif" alt="" width="375" height="275" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Photo credit: Aeneas </p></div>
<p><em>Editor&#8217;s note: The following is the first installment of a series of articles following activist Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff&#8217;s battle against her own government, as they proceed to prosecute her for disseminating the truth about Islam. </em></p>
<p>On February 15, 2011, the Austrian Counterjihad activist <a href="http://english.savefreespeech.org/">Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff</a> was convicted of “hate speech” in a Vienna courtroom for what she said in a private seminar about Muhammad and Islam.</p>
<p>The original charge was “incitement to hatred”. On the second day of her trial, the judge at her own discretion added a second charge, “denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion.” Elisabeth was acquitted of the first charge, but convicted of the second. She was sentenced to pay a fine of €480. Her case is currently being appealed to Austria’s highest court. If the verdict is upheld, and she refuses to pay the fine, she will spend two months in jail.</p>
<p>How could this happen in a modern European democratic state which recognizes the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and enshrines the right to free speech in its Constitution?</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">————————————————</p>
<p>Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff is the daughter of a retired diplomat in the Austrian foreign service. During her childhood and young adulthood she experienced Islam up close and personal, in places such as Libya, Kuwait, Iraq, and Iran. She was in Tehran with her parents during the Islamic Revolution of 1979. As a student, she was working during her summer break in Kuwait when Saddam Hussein invaded the country. On September 11, 2001, Elisabeth was working in the Austrian embassy in Tripoli. She saw the Libyan people celebrate the destruction of the World Trade Center and the deaths of nearly 3,000 Americans. All of these experiences were lessons she took to heart, but 9-11 motivated her to examine Islam more closely over the next few years.</p>
<p>In October 2007 Elisabeth attended the Counterjihad Brussels conference and delivered the country report on the state of Islamization in Austria. In early 2008 she began a series of seminars on Islam in Vienna, explaining to interested parties what the Qur’an and the hadith actually teach, along with the basic tenets of Islamic law.</p>
<p>For the next year and a half the interest in her seminars grew, and attendance increased. The success of her lectures drew the interest of Austrian leftists, who are as determined as leftists in other Western countries to discredit and destroy the work of those they view as “racists”, “fascists”, and “Islamophobes”. Unbeknownst to Elisabeth, the left-wing magazine NEWS sent a reporter to one of her seminars to make a surreptitious recording of it.</p>
<p>As a result, in late November, 2009, a criminal complaint was filed against Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff for “hate speech” under Austrian law. From an Austrian progressive’s point of view, her offense was compounded by the fact that it was held under the auspices of the FPÖ (Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs, or the Austrian Freedom Party). Despite its popularity with Austrian voters, the FPÖ is reviled as a “xenophobic” party by the media and political class.</p>
<p>A few days after the complaint was filed, Elisabeth was interviewed by the prominent Austrian magazine <a href="http://www.profil.at/">profil</a> (the Austrian equivalent of <em>Time</em> or <em>Der Spiegel</em>). Some quotes from the interview:</p>
<p>•	“We are people defending the principles of freedom and equality in a secular society. I criticize political Islam and its political manifestations. No democratic country can take this right away from anyone.”</p>
<p>•	“I want to preserve Europe and its democratic and secular values.”</p>
<p>•	“Islamic doctrine discriminates against women and non-Muslims. Islamic law, or shariah, cannot be reconciled with democratic principles and universal human rights.”</p>
<p>•	“There are powerful groups who are working towards the Islamization of Europe. That is a fact. What can we gain from closing our eyes and ignoring this? Even Libyan leader Muammar Ghadafi says: ‘There are signs that Allah will grant victory to Islam in Europe without swords, without guns, without conquest.’”</p>
<p>•	“Muslims have to liberate themselves; from this static and tenacious Islam that is hell-bent on following norms from the seventh century. The result is that wherever there are Islamic societies there is no progress, but steps backwards, especially in the realm of human rights and democracy.”</p>
<p>•	Concerning “Islamophobia”: “A phobia is an irrational fear. My worries are not irrational, but justified. One of these days our politicians will have to recognize this fact. People like me are not right-wing xenophobes.”</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/ned-may/the-political-persecution-of-elisabeth-sabaditsch-wolff/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>21</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Islamization of London: A Photo Tour</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/ned-may/the-islamization-of-london-a-photo-tour/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-islamization-of-london-a-photo-tour</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/ned-may/the-islamization-of-london-a-photo-tour/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Oct 2011 04:33:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ned May]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[anjem choudary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[English Defence League]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[London]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Muslims Against Crusades]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sharia Creep]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=108393</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This is not creeping Sharia, it is galloping Sharia.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/riots-edl-mac-1211.gif"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-108458" title="riots-edl-mac-121" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/riots-edl-mac-1211.gif" alt="" width="330" height="246" /></a></p>
<p>When I arrived in London in September it had been more than forty years since I had last spent any time in the city. If I hadn’t kept up with recent events through my British contacts, the changes would have been startling indeed.</p>
<p>The most popular tourist spots appear much the same, and the commercial areas are still thronged with shoppers. No matter where you go, however, the presence of Islam makes itself felt. With the rapid increase in the Muslim population over the past decade, the capital of Britain has moved that much closer to becoming an Islamic city.</p>
<p>The process of Islamization is not always as obvious as in this poster, which appeared one morning last July at a bus shelter on the corner of Mission Grove and Carisbrooke Road, in the Waltham Forest area of East London:</p>
<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Picture-13.gif"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-108422" title="Picture-13" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Picture-13.gif" alt="" width="286" height="386" /></a></p>
<p>A straightened out close-up provides a clearer view of what the devout Muslims of Waltham Forest are demanding:</p>
<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Picture-14.gif"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-108424" title="Picture-14" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Picture-14.gif" alt="" width="250" height="353" /></a></p>
<p>This is the new Islamic Britain as envisioned by the fire-breathing radical Anjem Choudary and Muslims Against Crusades. MAC’s latest initiative is called The Islamic Emirates Project, and its stated goal is “Breaking the Foundations of Western Civilisation”:</p>
<blockquote><p>Muslims across the UK collectively declared their disgust of British values and their desire to live by the Shari’ah.</p>
<p>As Muslim enclaves across Britain rapidly edge closer to Islamic autonomy, Muslims Against Crusades in conjunction with several other leading Muslim organisations would like to declare the next chapter in the ongoing campaign to transform Britain into a thriving Islamic state.</p></blockquote>
<p>Mr. Choudary lives in Ilford, but he and his supporters are also active in East London, Luton, and other parts of England where Islam is ascendant. He is the most forthright and plainspoken of Britain’s Islamic radicals. No taqiyyah or kitman (sacred lying) for him. He proudly proclaims the coming Caliphate in public, volubly and repeatedly, into the microphones and in front of the cameras.</p>
<p>Denial is rampant among the multicultural oligarchs of the political class. The British government prefers to believe that Anjem Choudary and other Islamic zealots are not serious in their avowed intentions. Their incendiary pronouncements are thought to be mere rhetoric — what they really want is more funding, more generous welfare benefits, new state-supported Koran schools, or more parking spaces around their mosques. Everything is business as usual to the politicos.</p>
<p>The leaders of the three major political parties find it impossible to accept that these “extremists” mean exactly what they say. Acknowledging the problem would force the government to actually do something to save the country from destruction. In the second decade of the 21st century — with millions of Muslims already in Britain, and hundreds of thousands more arriving or being born every year — what could they do? How could Islamization ever be reversed without enormous expense or unimaginable violence?</p>
<p>No, it’s better to pretend that everything is harmonious and peaceful and normal in Modern Multicultural Britain.</p>
<p>From time to time the coming Emirate intrudes even into the tourist zones of London. On Saturday, September 24, under the sponsorship of Mayor Boris Johnson, a huge officially-sanctioned Eid Festival was held in Trafalgar Square. The domed building in the background is part of the National Portrait Gallery:</p>
<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Picture-15.gif"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-108428" title="Picture-15" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Picture-15.gif" alt="" width="371" height="278" /></a></p>
<p>The cave-like structure below is a stage for performers. When I arrived, loud drumming was coming over the speakers. In the background you can see Nelson’s Column, which serves as a reminder of the greatness that once was, but is no longer:</p>
<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Picture-17.gif"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-108433" title="Picture-17" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Picture-17.gif" alt="" width="320" height="395" /></a></p>
<p>The drumming was soon replaced over the PA by “Muslim rap”. A large display screen behind the fountain provides an incongruous contrast between the rapper and the nautical-themed statue in the foreground:</p>
<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Picture-16.gif"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-108432" title="Picture-16" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Picture-16.gif" alt="" width="300" height="343" /></a></p>
<p>The Islamic presence is visible all over London. From Marble Arch to Docklands, from Piccadilly to King’s Cross: on virtually every street can be seen women in hijab, often pushing strollers, and men wearing skullcaps and Islamic robes.</p>
<p>One of my British contacts is a longtime observer of Muslims in the capital, and has analyzed the pattern of their street behaviors:</p>
<blockquote><p>I regularly walk up and down Ladbroke Grove, Portobello Road and Harrow Road and have noted a process of coagulation or clumping of the sidewalks by Muslim women:</p>
<p>•	Two Muslim women, each with baby pushcars, can present a significant amount of biomass on a sidewalk — a phalanx of piety? — to the extent that evasive action is required.</p>
<p>•	Groups of two or three Muslim women are increasingly common — more towards the North Kensington end — in Harrow Road and Kensal Road.</p>
<p>•	It is also increasingly common to see non-Western dress among Muslim men, both old and young.</p></blockquote>
<p>Mosques are prominent in many different areas of the city. For example, this is the Regent’s Park Mosque, in a leafy middle-class neighborhood not far from Marylebone Road:</p>
<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Picture-18.gif"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-108434" title="Picture-18" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Picture-18.gif" alt="" width="320" height="317" /></a></p>
<p>Certain areas of the city are more thoroughly Islamized, however. Tower Hamlets, which hosts the East London Mosque, has a majority-Islamic borough council and a Muslim mayor, Lutfur Rahman:</p>
<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Picture-19.gif"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-108435" title="Picture-19" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Picture-19.gif" alt="" width="320" height="349" /></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/ned-may/the-islamization-of-london-a-photo-tour/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>121</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 616/633 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-31 06:58:14 by W3 Total Cache -->