Par Emile_Tubiana (Emile_Tubiana) le lundi 10 avril 2006 - 08h43:

Moshebe Bravo! pour la peinture que vous avez affiche. Elle exprime tres clairemnet le lien de Pessah et de la sortie d'Egypte.

Bonne fetes a Tous.
Emile

Par Emile_Tubiana (Emile_Tubiana) le lundi 10 avril 2006 - 08h38:

Paul Tubiana, qui a créé le site web www.diabetescasestudy.com, dédié à etablir la diagnose correcte du diabète, propose aux harissiens qui résident aux États Unis de signer sa pétition "Cure Type 1 Diabetes Initiative/C-Peptide Test Information Act" qui a comme but d'attirer l'attention des authorités sur l'importance du test de C-Peptide afin de distinguer entre le diabete du type 2 et du type 1 chez les enfants.

Ce lien vous amènera sur la page de signature. Merci pour votre support.

http://www.petitiononline.com/CPT12345/petition.html

Par A_Soued (A_Soued) le lundi 10 avril 2006 - 02h30:

COMMENT VAINCRE LE JIHAD ?



Interview de Serge Trifkovic, ancien commentateur à la BBC et journaliste au magazine Us News and World Report. Livre paru "L'épée du prophète" et "Comment vaincre le Jihad" est en cours de parution à Regina Orthodox Press. Premiers commentaires sur www.ChroniclesMagazine.org

Propos recueillis par Jamie Glazow de www.FrontPageMagazine.com le 31/03/06 et extraits résumés et traduits par Albert Soued, www.chez.com/soued/conf.htm



…. Pour vaincre le Jihad, il faut commencer par comprendre l'idéologie de l'adversaire, non pour lui trouver des excuses, mais pour la combattre. Il faut connaître les "ressorts" qui font agir les terroristes; or ces ressorts sont ancrés dans le dogme de l'Islam et dans son histoire, notamment dans la personnalité de son fondateur, Mohamed (voir ci-dessous). Le terrorisme n'est pas une aberration de l'Islam, mais la conséquence directe et prévisible de l'application dogmatique de cette "vision du monde" politique et religieuse. Ainsi il faut s'informer objectivement sur le contenu du Coran, du Hadith et bien s'imprégner de l'histoire de l'Islam depuis sa naissance avec Mohamed jusqu'à nos jours.

Secundo, il faut consolider nos défenses contre l'envahissement progressif d'une culture offensive et menaçante en luttant contre l'immigration non désirée et contre la constitution de communautés hostiles à notre mode de vie et à notre vision du monde. Mais des 2 côtés de l'Atlantique, nos élites sont "islamiquement correctes" et ne veulent pas prendre conscience de la menace démographique et culturelle qui s'insinue progressivement.

Tertio, nous devons repenser notre politique étrangère et notre stratégie militaire en fonction de nos intérêts nationaux à long terme, afin qu'elles soient cohérentes et qu'elles envoient les mêmes signaux à l'adversaire. Il faut pouvoir répondre à ce type de question: la sécurité nationale est-elle renforcée par un mur contre l'immigration mexicaine ou par le maintien de nos troupes en Irak?

Quarto, le terrorisme a besoin d'un territoire à partir duquel il puisse agir et il faut l'en empêcher, en répertoriant les pays ou zones refuges et en les en dissuadant.

Et enfin l'essentiel, c'est que la victoire dans cette guerre sera obtenue dans le domaine de la morale et de la spiritualité. Nous défendrons d'autant mieux notre territoire contre l'invasion "barbare" que nos valeurs seront mieux ancrées en nous. En aucune façon, nous ne devons offrir ce qu'on appelle "un ventre mou", car c'est l'invasion assurée. Et chacun de nous doit s'impliquer, chacun selon sa sensibilité (1).


Mohamed
Lors de la récente polémique sur les caricatures danoises, il est apparu que le prophète Mohamed était considéré en Islam à l'égal d'un Dieu, inviolable, sacré. Or quand on analyse la personnalité de cet homme on est sidéré de constater que 1,3 milliard d'êtres humains puissent vénérer un tel fondateur de l'Islam. L'exposé qui suit s'appuie seulement sur les sources orthodoxes de l'Islam, le Coran et le h'adith.

Mohamed a commencé sa carrière en pillant les caravanes de la Mecque, violant ainsi un mois sacré où personne n'était sensé porter des armes. En 624 à Badr, il tua 40 Mecquois dans une bataille et exécuta tous les prisonniers, avec l'approbation d'Allah "instille la terreur dans le cœur des non croyants, frappe leur nuque et le bout de leurs doigts" (8/12). L'ayatollah Khomeini commente ainsi la suite "après la bataille de Badr, l'Islam a vaincu par le sang".

En effet, la méthode employée par Mohamed pour avoir des adeptes était simple: après les avoir dépouillés et tué femmes et enfants, il leur promettait le prochain butin et les prochains esclaves. Mais Mohamed gardait 20% de tout ce qui avait été razzié. Et cette façon de faire occupe tout un chapitre dans le Coran. Après la razzia et le partage, il était alors temps de se relaxer "Maintenant tu peux jouir de tout ce que tu as gagné, car c'est devenu légal et bon". Ceux qui sont morts lors du raid jouissent eux d'un paradis éternel, rempli de vierges "qu'aucun homme n'a touché" et "de jeunes et frais éphèbes". Le prêcheur de cette époque jubilait devant le spectacle des têtes tranchées de l'ennemi "qui est plus réjouissant que celui du plus beau chameau d'Arabie". Tuer les prisonniers est toléré par Allah ( 8/68). Les non croyants sont les pires animaux (8/55) et les créatures les plus viles (98/6), ne méritant aucune miséricorde. On doit leur trancher la tête (47/4). L'assassinat, le vol et l'esclavage sont autorisés par Allah.

Après Badr, Mohamed arrive triomphant à Médine où il tue Abou Afaq, un Juif qui a osé critiquer ses méthodes, et Asma bent Marwan, une poétesse qui s'est moqué de lui dans un vers, de même que Kab Ashraf, un autre poète. Ils étaient coupables d'insultes verbales, donnant le ton de la liberté d'expression en Islam, valable jusqu'à ce jour.

Puis Mohamed a demandé à ses adeptes de "tuer tout Juif qu'ils avaient sous la main". Quand 6 de ses sbires ont assassiné dans son sommeil un vieillard du nom de Abou Rafi, ils se sont querellés pour savoir qui avait eu l'honneur de mettre fin aux jours du malheureux. Le prophète trancha en faveur de celui qui avait l'épée souillée par de la nourriture, car Abou Rafi venait de dîner avant de dormir. Puis vint l'attaque de la tribu juive de Banoul Moustaliq qui a vu 500 de ses femmes enlevées et violées dans une orgie collective. Les pogroms ont culminé lors de l'attaque de la dernière tribu de Médine Banou Qourayshah dont 900 hommes ont été décapités et jetés dans un fossé, en face des leurs femmes et leurs enfants. Allah a loué Moahamed "pour avoir jeté la terreur dans leur cœur"(33/25). Les femmes ont été systématiquement violées et Mohamed a choisi comme concubine Rayhana bent Amr, dont le père et le mari avaient été massacrés devant ses yeux quelques heures plus tôt.

Les messages d'Allah sont devenus plus cruels à l'égard des "infidèles": "prend-le, attache-le et expose le au feu de l'enfer "(69/30-37). "Ils seront tués ou crucifiés et auront pieds et mains coupées"(5/33-34). "Pour l'infidèle nous avons préparé des chaînes, des entraves et un feu flamboyant" (76/4). Et les choses empirent dans 22/19-22: "des vêtements de feu seront coupés pour eux, des liquides bouillants seront déversés sur leur tête, et tout ce que renferme leur ventre et leur peau seront fondus et, pour eux, on préparera des crochets en fer…"

Mohamed évolue, de l'illuminé marginal il devient le maître de la vie et de la mort, et sa personnalité s'est totalement transformée, notamment lors de la décennie précédant sa mort en 633. Allah est invoqué comme l'autorité présidant à toutes les facéties du prophète, notamment sur le plan de sa sensualité démesurée. Il a produit un verset coranique "approuvant ses orgies nocturnes avec une esclave égyptienne et admonestant ses femmes jalouses pour leurs objections" (66/1-3). De même Allah l'aurait autorisé à prendre pour femme sa bru Zainab qu'il convoitait (36/37). Quant à Aisha, il l'épousa quand elle jouait encore à la poupée, elle avait 7 ans, et il la déflora quand elle avait 9 ans!



On doit donc poser des questions précises aux Musulmans sur ces massacres, viols, esclavages, nettoyages ethniques, génocides au nom d'Allah et de l'Islam.

Ainsi de nombreux commandements de l'Islam et les comportements de Mohamed sont criminels et condamnables, même selon les règles et les normes du 7ème siècle. Ils sont considérés comme répugnants par les contemporains de Mohamed. Les "visions et les révélations" reçues ne peuvent justifier de tels actes en contradiction avec le code moral en vigueur à cette époque. Rien ne justifie d'attaquer des caravanes pendant un mois sacré (où les gens sont sans défense), de prendre les armes contre ses propres frères, de massacrer les prisonniers, de garder la part du lion dans les butins, de tuer les gens sans provocation, de violer les traités conclus, de s'adonner à une sexualité perverse et de narguer la morale en vigueur. Ce comportement reste unique dans l'histoire des religions et surtout l'ordre d'Allah "de tuer les non croyants là où on les trouve", injonction puissante et non ambiguë. "Quand tu dois détruire une population, alors détruis-la complètement" (17/16-17) et "ceux qui nous désobéissent, nous les détruirons totalement"(21/11) sont des appels directs et clairs au génocide totalitaire.

La fin du jihad n'est possible que "lorsque prévaudra la justice et la foi en Allah" (2/193). Ainsi tout univers est illégitime en dehors de l'Islam.

La revendication de cette religion que les mots et les actes du prophète Mohamed sont les seules normes de moralité valables, pour tous les hommes et en tout temps, est la source de la majorité des conflits que nous vivons actuellement dans le monde.



Note de la traduction

(1) Nous avons assisté à des conférences sur de nombreux sujets liés à la défense contre l'obscurantisme apporté par le dit "islamisme" en Occident. Nous avons constaté un énorme fossé entre ce "jihad" en cours et la "culpabilité" occidentale à l'égard de l'Islam qui semble paralyser toute action et déformer toute pensée. L'"islamiquement correct" est un courant de pensée actuellement répandu notamment parmi les élites qui justifie la passivité et la neutralité vis à vis d'une offensive insidieuse, rampante et conquérante de l'Islam en Europe. Aucune proposition concrète n'est ressortie de ces réunions feutrées où en fait tout le monde avait peur et appréhendait l'avenir.

Alors que le traducteur vient de recevoir par mail des menaces précises pour un article sur le wahabisme, paru sur le site www.nuitdorient.com, article historique et documenté qu'on peut lire à www.nuitdorient.com/n231.htm . L'auteur des menaces par email est assuré de l'impunité malgré qu'on puisse le repérer par son adresse, puisqu'il invoque le Coran à l'appui de ses menaces.







Defeating Jihad
By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | March 31, 2006

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Serge Trifkovic, a former BBC commentator and US News and World Report reporter. His last book was The Sword of the Prophet. The sequel, Defeating Jihad, will be published by Regina Orthodox Press in April. Read his commentaries on ChroniclesMagazine.org.



Glazov: Mr. Trifkovic, welcome to Frontpage Magazine.

Trifkovic: Thank you.



Glazov: Before we get to your book, let's talk about the Abdul Rahman case for a moment. He has just been released and is now in Italy. What do you think the key significance of this case is?
Trifkovic: This became a cause célèbre only because of the presence of American troops in Afghanistan: having Rahman killed for apostasy under their noses would have made too explicit a debacle of the already farcical neocon phantasy known as "democratizing the greater Middle East." No, when Christians are routinely mistreated and killed by our other trusted friends and allies of the United States in the region - notably Pakistan, Egypt, and even the "secular" Turkey - you don't hear about it, there are no vigils, no protests, no offers of asylum. In Pakistan, murders, endemic discrimination, and constant harassment of Christians - who are mainly poor and account for a mere one percent of the population - is persistent. Any dispute with a Muslim - most commonly over land - can become a religious issue. Christians are routinely accused of "blasphemy against Islam," an offense that carries the death penalty as Pakistan has some of the strictest blasphemy laws in the Muslim world. Charges of blasphemy can be made on the flimsiest of evidence - even one man's word against another - and since it is invariably a Muslim's word against that of a Christian, the outcome is preordained.
In Egypt, supposedly a friend of the United States and the second largest recipient of the U.S. taxpayers' largesse, not a single murderer was convicted following the January 2000 massacre of 21 Coptic Christians in the village of Al-Kosheh, and smaller-scale massacres continue unabated.
The murder of a Catholic priest in Trabzon, on Turkey's Black Sea coast, last February was a classic case of jihadism. Father Andrea Santoro was shot twice at point-blank range in his church by a youth who shouted Allahu akbar (Allah is great!) before quitting the scene.
This event should remind us that Turkey is a profoundly un-European country, steeped in an ethos deeply hostile to Western ways. As late as 1955, Istanbul's Christians suffered the worst race riot in Europe since Kristallnacht. And just look at the phenomenal success last year of the Valley of the Wolves, Iraq - the most expensive Turkish film ever made. It opens with a real life event: in July 2003 U.S. Marines raided Turkish Special Forces headquarters in the Iraqi city of Sulimaniyah, mistaking them for guerrillas. Washington later apologized but the movie makes the incident look like a deliberate American ploy. The subsequent fictional plot has Americans attacking a mosque during evening prayers. They murder dozens of innocents at a wedding (including a little boy), and allow a Jewish doctor to remove vital organs from Abu Ghraib inmates, so that they can be sold in New York - and Tel Aviv!
But back to your question. An excellent source is "The New Persecuted: Inquiries into Anti-Christian Intolerance in the New Century of Martyrs" by Antonio Socci. Socci provides evidence that in the past century some 50 million Christians have been killed primarily or exclusively for the reason of their faith; an average of 160,000 Christians have been killed every year since 1990, the vast majority by Muslims in the Third World: East Timor, Sudan, Mauritania, Nigeria.. Socci laments the fact that "this global persecution of Christianity is still in progress but in most cases is ignored by the mass media and Christians in the West."
There are two parallel processes overlooked in the current Middle Eastern crisis: the apparently terminal decline of the Christian remnant in the Middle East after 14 centuries of precarious dhimmitude, and the remarkable indifference of the post-Christian, latently Christophobic Western elite class to its impending demise.
Under the British Mandate, Palestine officially was a Christian country, with Bethlehem having a population that was 90 percent Christian. Today they are literally disappearing. Among over three million Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem, under 50,000 Christians remain. By the year 2020 there will be no living church in the land of Christ. Perhaps Mr. Rahman's case should throw some light on that melancholy fact.



Glazov: Ok, let’s move on to your book. You make the point that the Islamist threat to the West is greater than ever. Can you explain? And this means we are losing the terror war, no?
Trifkovic: Losing, absolutely, without a doubt. After Stalingrad Germany was doomed, after Moscow Napoleon was finished, and after Gettysburg the Confederacy could no longer hope to turn the tide. No such turning point has been reached in the misnamed Global War on Terrorism (GWOT). We need a comprehensive strategy of defense not merely against a small jihadist elite but against an inherently aggressive, demographically vibrant, and ideologically rigid Islamic movement - and please, no more "Islamist" red herrings! - a movement that has global proportions and world-historical significance. As an ideology and a blueprint for radical political action, it is a phenomenon that cannot be compared in dynamism, energy, and potential consequences with any other creed or idea in today's world. It demands a sustained, bold response that has failed to materialize so far. We are losing the war because our elite class does not allow the enemy to be defined. The squeamishness of European and American bien-pensants alike in naming the enemy is but one sign of a shared malaise that hampers a coherent effort.
Bin Laden's network may have been damaged and disrupted since 2001 and his cause may in many places be in the hands of self-starters and amateurs, but he could never have dreamed that the world, almost five years after 9-11, would look so favorable to his objectives. A new strategy is needed to make it less so. It can never be "won" in the sense of eliminating the phenomenon of terrorism altogether, but it can be successfully pursued to the point where the Western world can be made significantly safer by adopting measures - predominantly defensive measures - that would reduce the danger to as near zero as possible. The victory will come not by conquering Mecca for America, but by disengaging America from Mecca (energy independence is a must!) and by excluding Mecca from America with a new immigration policy, soberly defined and rigorously enforced. The risk can, and must, be managed wisely, resolutely, and permanently.

Glazov: You show that there is simply no other way around it: Muslim immigration and a Muslim presence in a country is directly connected to that country being the target of terror. Can you talk about this a bit? And what is the solution?
Trifkovic: "If you know the enemy and know yourself you need not fear the results of a hundred battles," says Sun Tzu. Once we get to know the jihadist enemy, his core beliefs, his role models, his track-record, his mindset, his modus operandi, and his intentions, we'll also know his weaknesses, which are many, above all his inability to develop a prosperous economy, or a functional family, or a harmonious society. But the main problem is with those among us who have the power to make policy and shape opinions, and who will reject our diagnosis. Having absorbed postmodernist assumptions, certain only of uncertainty, devoid of any serious faith except that in their own infallibility, members of our own elite class treat the jihadist mindset as a pathology that can and should be treated by treating causes external to Islam itself.
The result is a plethora of proposed "cures" that are as likely to succeed in making us safe from terrorism as snake oil is likely to cure leukemia. Abroad, we are told, we need to address political and economic grievances of the impoverished masses, we need to spread democracy and free markets in the Muslim world, we need to invest more in public diplomacy. At home we need more tolerance, greater inclusiveness, less profiling, and a more determined outreach to the minorities that feel marginalized and threatened by the war on terror. The predictable failure of such cures leads to ever more pathological self-scrutiny and morbid self-doubt. This vicious circle is untenable and must be broken.
Let me start with the emotionally charged issue of constitutional rights versus national security. Last December the controversy on phone tapping was presented by the mass media to the nation through the inflammatory headline, "Bush authorized spying on Americans." The unwillingness of the mainstream media to disclose the exact identity of the NSA eavesdropping subjects was reminiscent of its refusal to disclose the religious identity of tens of thousands of rioters who wreaked havoc in dozens of French suburbs last November. In both cases the mainstream media were guilty of misconstruing reality for reasons rooted in their ideological prejudices and political preferences.
Within America, glossing over the surveillance targets' identity has two objectives. First of all, it presented President Bush as an out-of-control autocrat-in-the-making whose hoods may be eavesdropping on any one of us at any time. Secondly, it also implied that a Muslim who has become a naturalized American citizen is so thoroughly and irrevocably "American," that no hyphenated designation or qualifier is called for.
Abroad, concealing the rioters' identity fits in with the liberal world view that reject the notion that importing Muslim immigrants may be in any way disadvantageous for the host country. Having reduced religion, politics and art to "narratives" and "metaphors" which merely reflect prejudices based on the distribution of power, the elite class saw the rioters' shout of "Allahu akbar!" as a mere idiosyncrasy that would be cured if the French state gave those "youths" more jobs, more dark-skinned TV anchors, and, of course, lots of "affirmative action" in employment and education.
The legal and constitutional dilemma, such as whether it should spy on "Americans" at home or not and whether a court warrant is needed or not, is worthy of debate in principle. It is both false and unnecessary under the circumstances. Radical solutions are needed for radical challenges, and they do exist. If and when all persons engaged in Islamic activism are excluded from America, there will be no need for such intrusive domestic surveillance. We don't need any legislation to protect CAIR's clients' privacy, we need the law that will treat any naturalized citizen's or resident alien's known or suspected adherence to an Islamic world outlook as excludable - on political, rather than "religious" grounds.
All Americans - real Americans, that is, and not those who falsely take the oath of citizenship but continue to preach jihad and Sharia - will be spared the worry about Mr. Bush listening in to their phone conversations if Islamic activism is treated as grounds for the loss of acquired U.S. citizenship and deportation. The citizenship of any naturalized American who preaches jihad, inequality of "infidels" and women, the establishment of the Shari'a law etc., should be revoked, and that person promptly deported to the country of origin.
A foreigner who becomes naturalized has to declare, on oath, "that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law. and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God." But for a Muslim to declare all of the above in good faith, and especially that he accepts the US Constitution as the source of his highest loyalty, is an act of apostasy par excellence, punishable by death under the Islamic law. The sharia, to a Muslim, is not an addition to the "secular" legal code with which it coexists with "the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"; it is the only true code, the only basis of obligation. To be legitimate, all political power therefore must rest exclusively with those who enjoy Allah's authority on the basis of his revealed will. America is illegitimate.
So how can a self-avowedly devout Muslim take the oath, and expect the rest of us to believe that it was done in good faith? Because he is practicing taqiyya, the art of dissimulation that was inaugurated by Muhammad to help destabilize and undermine non-Muslim communities almost ripe for a touch of Jihad. Or else because he is not devout enough and confused, but in that case there is the ever-present danger that at some point he will rediscover his roots, with many predictably unpleasant consequences for the rest of us.
Let me add that the aversion to "profiling" is a symptom, minor but telling, of the elite class pathology. Law-enforcers in other parts of the world pay no heed to the dictates of "sensitivity" and anti-discriminationism. Arabs profile other Arabs, Indians profile Pakistanis, Japanese profile Chinese, and everyone profiles Africans. Israel profiles everyone entering and exiting all the time, and makes no qualms about it. One percent of Muslims living in the United States were responsible for over 90 percent of terrorist offences and serious threats in the country since 9-11. A young Muslim man is literally millions of times more likely to carry out a terrorist attack in the United States than an Episcopalian, Roman Catholic, or Orthodox Christian, a Jew, a Hindu, or a Buddhist. Or for that matter a Lebanese Christian. Membership of a group is a valid pointer in assuming and judging unobserved behavioral characteristics of an individual, especially in the absence of specific information about that individual's background. To suggest otherwise is neither moral nor sane.
And finally, a person's Islamic faith and outlook is incompatible with the requirements of personal commitment, patriotic loyalty and unquestionable reliability that are essential in the military, law enforcement, intelligence services, and other related branches of government. For as long as practicing Muslims are able to get security clearances, terrorist organizations will continue trying to insinuate their supporters into the hiring pools of American security agencies. Any presence of practicing Muslims in any such institution presents an inherent risk to its integrity and undermines its morale.
New immigration legislation is badly needed. Islamic activism should be treated as the grounds for the exclusion or deportation of any alien, regardless of his status or ties in the United States. Useful precedents exist. Keeping out and facilitating the expulsion of politically undesirable foreigners has been at the heart of this country's immigration legislation since 1903 when Congress barred the admission of anarchists in response to President McKinley's assassination. "Ideological" grounds for deportation were on the statute books until 1990, when they were unwisely repealed by Congress. After the Russian revolution foreign communists were singled out for deportation. One night alone in January of 1920, more than 2,500 "alien radicals" were seized in thirty-three cities across the country and deported to their countries of origin. Those who preach Jihad and Sharia can and should be treated in exactly the same manner.

Glazov: Give us a little more of your blueprint for victory.
Trifkovic: It is essential, let me repeat, to define and understand the enemy. Are Muslim terrorists - the only variety that seriously threatens the United States and the Western world - true or false to the tenets of their faith? The answer has to be based on Islam's history and dogma, not on any a priori judgment by those who presume to know the answer or, worse still, have ulterior motives for lying about Islam - e.g. Western converts to Islam who conceal their new names and their true loyalties. That straightjacket has to be discarded, and the public educated about the sacred texts of Islam, its record of interaction with other societies, and the personality of its founder, Muhammad. Such education will open the way to understanding the motives, ambitions and methods of terrorists. We need to know if terrorism is an aberration of Islam's alleged peace and tolerance, or a predictable consequence of the ideology of Jihad.
The second task is to survey the defenses. Both in America and in Europe the elite class deems such questions about the nature of Islam - illegitimate. On both sides of the ocean there also exists an elite consensus that de facto open immigration, multiculturalism, and the existence of a large Muslim diaspora within the Western world are to be treated as a fixed given and should not be scrutinized in any anti-terrorist debate. That imposed elite consensus, in my view, is morbid, ideological in nature, flawed in logic, dogmatic in application, and disastrous in results. It needs to be tested against evidence, not against the alleged norms of acceptable public discourse imposed by those who either do not know Islam, or else do not want us to know the truth about it.
An effective defense against terrorism demands a re-think of our foreign and military policies. Would American soldiers make America safer by patrolling the border with Mexico rather than the streets of Falluja? What are the costs and benefits of supporting the jihadist side in the Caucasus and the Balkans? Even more important is the issue of grand strategy. Pursuing the path of "benevolent global hegemony" is certain to take America the same way as Athens after Pericles and the USSR after Brzhnev. Above all, operational effectiveness must no longer be confused with strategy itself.
Last but by no means least, the impact of ongoing Muslim migratory influx onto the developed world, and the consequences of the existence of a multi-million Muslim diaspora in Western Europe and North America, are inseparable from the coherent long-term defense strategy. That strategy must entail denying actual and potential terrorists the foothold inside the Dar al-Harb! Controlling the borders is only the first step. The application of clearly defined criteria related to terrorism in deciding who will be admitted into the country, and in determining who should be allowed to stay from among those who are already here, is essential. Carefully evaluating the ideological profile of all prospective visitors to America, and systematically re-examining the behavior of all resident aliens and checking the bona-fides of naturalized citizens, is an essential ingredient of a serious anti-terrorist strategy. To that end, Islamic activism needs to be treated as an excludable, eminently political, rather than "religious" activity.
The victory in the war on terrorism ultimately has to be won in the domain of morals and culture. It can be won only by an America - and Britain, and France, and Italy. - that has regained its awareness of its moral, spiritual, and civilizational roots. If that happens, the renewed impulse to defend those lands and to procreate will come, too. While the likelihood of such belated recovery remains in doubt, it it is not impossible. Miracles do happen, and therefore they will happen.


Glazov: Many Muslims I talk to often tell me that their Prophet was a man of "peace." As you demonstrate once again in your new book, he so clearly was not. Tell us briefly how he wasn't. And do the Muslims that I speak with not read the Koran? Or do they have a different concept of "peace"?
Trifkovic: Those Muslims you talk to seem to have adopted the dialectical forma mentis of Stalin's apologists who'd have told you that his winter war against Finland was "defensive" and the Gulag was justified, or exaggerated, or both. Yes, the problem is that Muhammad remains, to all true Muslims, the inviolable paragon of goodness, and imitatio Muhammadi is reflected in the prevalence of his name throughout the Muslim world. Understanding him is the key to the Muslim world outlook.
The truth is grim, and for that reason the entire debate about those Danish cartoons last winter was flawed. The real problem is this: a figure as disturbing as the founder of Islam should not be gently made fun of - the cartoons were quite innocuous - at least not until his remarkable career has been given a vigorous public treatment in the Western world. The trouble with those cartoons was not that they offended fervent Muslims - that sort are offended by our very existence - but that by their placid humor they humanized a man with a hugely problematic legacy, and thereby offended the memory of untold millions of victims of Jihad through the ages. Ahmed Akkari, spokesman of the Muslim organizations in Denmark, said that Muslims all over the world want the "truth" about their prophet known to the rest of the world. OK, fine: let us look at Muhammad as "he really was in history," relying solely on orthodox Islamic sources, the Kuran and the hadith. Those sources provide an account of uncertain historical accuracy, but that account is regarded as true by all true Muslims and it provides the scriptural basis for the Muslim faith and the Islamic law. It tells us that he violated the sacred pagan month of Rajab, when no Arab was permitted to raise arms in battle by staging pirate raids on caravans from Mecca. In 624, at Badr, he killed forty Meccans in battle and executed prisoners, with Allah's approval: "instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, Smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger tips of them." (8:12) After Badr, to quote Ayatollah Khomeini, "Islam grew with blood."
Muhammad used the prospect of booty and ransom to recruit followers. This motive was so important that it merited a whole sura in the Kuran; but one fifth of everything was Muhammad's! Once the loot was divided it was time to relax: "Now enjoy what ye have won. as lawful and good." As for the fallen, a tangible, X-rated paradise filled with virgins "untouched by man" and "fresh" pre-pubescent boys awaited the "martyrs" immediately. The simple preacher eventually morphed into a vengeful warlord, who jubilantly exclaimed that the spectacle of severed enemy heads pleased him better than "the choicest camel in Arabia." Killing prisoners was divinely condoned by Allah. (8:68) Fresh revelations described the unbelievers as "the worst animals" (8:55) and "the vilest of creatures" (98:6) undeserving of mercy. The enemies' heads were to be cut off. (47:4) Killing, enslaving and robbing them was divinely sanctioned and mandated.
When Muhammad returned from Badr to Medina in triumph, he proceeded to settle scores with his detractors - and resorted to murder. He killed Abu Afak, an elderly Jew who dared question Muhammad's methods, and Asma bint Marwan, a poetess who had mocked him in verse, followed by another poet, Kab Ashraf. They were guilty of verbal insults, providing the Islamic view of the freedom of speech that is valid to this day.
Muhammad next told his followers to "kill any Jew you can lay your hands on." When six of his henchmen murdered an elderly Jew by the name of Abu Rafi in his sleep, they argued whose weapon had actually ended the victim's life. The prophet decided that the owner of the sword that still had traces of food on it was entitled to the credit: Abu Rafi had just eaten his dinner before falling asleep, and the fatal slash went through his stomach. The "Prophet's" attack against the Jewish tribe of Banu-'l-Mustaliq came next. His followers kidnapped 500 of their women, and the night after the battle they staged an orgy of rape. His pogroms culminated in the attack the last Jewish tribe in Medina, Banu Qurayzah. Up to 900 men were decapitated in a ditch, in front of their women and children. Allah praised Muhammad for the way "he struck terror into their hearts." (33:25) The women were subsequently raped. Muhammad chose as his concubine one Raihana Bint Amr, whose father and husband were both slaughtered before her eyes only hours earlier.
Allah's messages concerning "the infidel" subsequently grew ever harsher: "Take him and fetter him and expose him to hell fire." (69:30-37) They "will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off." (5:33-34) In this world, for the captured infidel "We have prepared chains, yokes and a blazing fire." (76:4) In the hereafter things get even worse: "garments of fire will be cut out for them, boiling fluid will be poured down their heads. Whereby that which is in their bellies, and their skins too, will be melted. And for them are hooked rods of iron." (22:19-22) One single Kuranic verse, "the Verse of the Sword," (9:5) Islamic scholars agree, abrogates 124 earlier verses - the ones that are quoted most regularly by Islam's apologists to prove its tolerance and benevolence.
Muhammad's progression from a marginalized outsider to a master of life and death produced a transformation of his personality in the decade preceding his death in 633 AD. Allah was invoked as the authority supporting the prophet's daily political objectives and his personal needs. Nowhere was this more obvious than when it came to his exaggerated sensuality. He came up with a Kuranic verse approving his nightly trysts with an Egyptian slave girl and admonishing his jealous wives for their objections to the practice. (66:1-3) Allah's revelation also enabled Muhammad to take his daughter-in-law Zainab as a wife when he lusted after her. (36:37)


Glazov: You discuss how Muhammad married Aisha when she was seven and still playing with dolls and that he had sex with her when she was nine. Can you kindly explain to me what Muslims think about this in their thinking of their Prophet? Every time I try to raise this issue with devout Muslims there is a lot of double-talk and a lot of anger directed at me. I never get anywhere on this issue. Can you give us your wisdom on this?
Trifkovic: There is no "wisdom," there is common decency and natural morality. Yes, Muslims need to be pressed on the rape of Aisha, and on the murders, ethnic cleansing, and genocide. On the whole, many commands of the Kuran and Muhammad's actions and words recorded in the Traditions are morally abhorrent and criminal not only by the standards of our time, but even in the context of 7th century Arabia! They were often considered repugnant by Muhammad's contemporaries. He had to resort to "revelations" as a means of justifying his actions and suppressing the prevalent moral code of his own society. Attacking caravans in the holy month, taking up arms against one's kinsmen, slaughtering prisoners, reserving a lion's share of the booty, murdering people without provocation, violating treaties, and indulging one's sensual passions, was also at odds with the moral standards of his Arab contemporaries. Only the ultimate authority could sanction it, and Allah duly obliged him.
On the whole, Muhammad's practice and constant encouragement of bloodshed are unique in the history of religions. Allah's order to "kill the unbelievers wherever you find them" is an injunction both unambiguous and powerful. The word "genocide" was not even coined when Muhammad conveyed Allah's alleged dictum, "When we decide to destroy a population. then we destroy them utterly." (17:16-17) Disobedient people "we utterly destroyed." (21:11) That Islam sees the world as an open-ended conflict between the Land of Peace (Dar al-Islam) and the Land of War (Dar al-Harb), which must be conquered by jihad, is the most important bequest of Muhammad to history. The end of Jihad is possible only when "there prevail justice and faith in Allah" everywhere. (2:193) Muhammad thus postulated the fundamental illegitimacy of the existence of a non-Muslim world. Muslims could contemplate tactical ceasefires, but never jihad's complete abandonment short of the unbelievers' abject submission.
On its own admission Islam stands or falls with the person of Muhammad, a deeply flawed man by the standards of his own society, as well as those of the Old and New Testaments, both of which he acknowledged as divine revelation; and even by the new law, of which he claimed to be the divinely appointed medium and custodian. The problem of Islam, and the problem of the rest of the world with Islam, is not the remarkable career of Muhammad per se, undoubtedly a "great man" in terms of his impact on human history. It is the religion's claim that the words and acts of its prophet provide the universally valid standard of morality as such, for all time and all men. Our judgment on Muhammad rests on evidence of his followers and faithful admirers. Even on such evidence, the verdict of the civilized world goes against the "prophet." That verdict, once it is passed - and it will be passed - will make the gentle mockery of Muhammad in those cartoons appear as inappropriate as it would be inappropriate today to lampoon Hitler for his out-of-wedlock liaison with Ewa Braun, or for his inability to control flatulence.

Par Pauline (Pauline) le dimanche 09 avril 2006 - 23h53:

NON A MBALLA SUR TFJ

Qui d'entre vous a vu (ou n'a pas vu) le bandeau qui passe sur TFJ avec , devinez quoi?
Demande aux telespectateurs si la chaine TFJ doit ou pas recevoir Dieudonné!
Pour donner son avis, ils donnent un numéro de téléphone: le 08 973 998 35 je propose qu'on l'appelle pour dire NON, et qu'ensuite on appelle la chaine au 01 46 10 40 40
DIFFUSER LARGEMENT
On peut leur écrire aussi à : webmaster@tfj.fr et à info@tfj.fr
Deux exemples de lettres, déja envoyées:
1) J'ai aperçu au moment des infos un bandeau sur lequel vous proposiez d'inviter Dieudonné sur le plateau de TFJ ;
Alors que de nombreuses interventions ont réussi à stopper ses manifestations antisémites télévisées (qu'il continue néanmoins dans ses spectacles) et alors qu’il a été constaté avec satisfaction que la plupart des journalistes répugnaient à le recevoir, ce qui n’est pas une mince victoire, vous nous soumettez l’idée grotesque et dangereuse de recevoir ce personnage, qui, contrairement à ce que vous croyez sans doute, utilisera votre entretien à vos dépens !
Vous n'allez pas croire j'espère qu'il va quitter votre studio en faisant son mea culpa, ni en vous remerciant sincèrement ?
Cette croyance erronée a déjà été éprouvée par le Rabin Sarfati, qui voulait emmener Dieudonné à Auschwitz et dont le triste « comique » s’est bien moqué auprès de ses admirateurs.
De plus, l’accueil de Dieudonné sur TFJ lui ouvrirait à nouveau les portes des autres chaines, et je doute que nous ayons à nous en féliciter à ce moment là.
Cette initiative serait une erreur dont il vaudrait mieux mesurer les conséquences éventuelles plutôt que de s’illusionner.
Cordialement
1)Votre affaire Dieudonné est ce que j'ai entendu de plus stupide et risible:
il va faire telephoner sa clique, et il passera sur votre chaine , et il vous ridiculisera ensuite;
vos illusions ont la peau dure!
d'après les echos que j'en ai, s'il passe, j'en connais beaucoup qui ne vous regarderont plus!
A l'approche de Yom Hashoa, je ressens une immense colère contre une telle initiative.

Netha

Par Suggest1 (Suggest1) le dimanche 09 avril 2006 - 23h17:

Demain Lundi 10 Avril,2006
Emission " L'étoile et le Jasmin" sur

RADIO JUDAIQUES FM 94.8 et Internet :

wwwjudaiquesfm.com
A 21 H 05

SHMUEL TRIGANO pour son livre

"L'AVENIR DES JUIFS DE FRANCE"
> Ed Grasset

Par Moshébé (Moshébé) le dimanche 09 avril 2006 - 21h57:

Bonjour à tous
De retour à Paris, je suis heureux de vous retrouver
Shâvoua Tov

Par Braham (Braham) le dimanche 09 avril 2006 - 19h27:

A tous les fideles amis de Harissa, je souhaite une tres joyeuse fete de Pessah'.

Par Albert (Albert) le dimanche 09 avril 2006 - 15h05:

Par Primo (Primo) le dimanche 09 avril 2006 - 10h02:

Le Canari dans la mine
Un livre hommage à Ilan Halimi


Au 19e siècle, les mineurs avaient pour habitude d’emmener un canari avec eux dans les galeries. Si un gaz toxique venait à s’échapper, le canari était le premier à mourir. Il leur servait ainsi de signal d’alarme.

Comme ce canari dans la mine, Ilan Halimi est l’une des premières victimes d’une atmosphère empoisonnée. D’autres l’avaient précédé : Sohane et Shérazade brûlées vives, la première ayant perdu la vie, Ghofrane lapidée à mort, Sébastien Sellam égorgé et énucléé aux cris de « Allah hou Akbar ».

Quoiqu’en disent les officiels, il ne s’agit pas de faits divers isolés. Tous ces jeunes ont été victimes d’un ordre nouveau, souterrain, qui semble vouloir s’imposer par-dessus les lois de la République.

D’où vient cet air vicié ? Qui en est responsable ? Quels sont les mécanismes ayant permis son émergence ?

Autant de questions essentielles auxquelles tentent de répondre les auteurs de cet ouvrage, tous membres de Primo-Europe.

Ce livre, publié aux éditions Yago, sera bientôt disponible dans les librairies et auprès de Primo-Europe.

Primo-Europe veut préciser que les auteurs ont renoncé à leurs droits, l’éditeur ne fera aucun bénéfice.

Les bénéfices de ce livre seront redistribués à des associations caritatives et c'est Mme Halimi elle-même qui nous indiquera ses préférences.

Nous aurons l’occasion prochainement de revenir sur les raisons qui ont guidé nos choix.

En réponse à tous ceux qui ont adressé un témoignage lors de ce drame, ceux qui nous demandaient « que faire ? », voici un livre à offrir, à faire connaître.

Ruth Halimi, la maman d’Ilan, a été associée à l’écriture. Son entretien avec Yaël König en est la préface.

Dans quelques jours, Primo-Europe vous indiquera comment vous procurer ce livre.


http://www.primo-europe.org/showdocs.php?rub=6.php&numdoc=Do-260011180

Par Email (Email) le dimanche 09 avril 2006 - 08h54: