Dhimwit of the Month Honors

Dhim·wit (dïm-wît) - A non-Muslim member of a free society that abets the stated cause of Islamic domination with remarkable gullibility.  A dhimwit is always quick to extend sympathy to the very enemy that would take away his or her own freedom (or life) if given the opportunity.
 

April 2008 Dhimwit: John Esposito

"Show me the money!"

John Esposito is a name unfamiliar to many, but there are few people on the planet more deserving of general Dhimwit honors than this Catholic apologist for Islam, who is currently on the Saudi payroll at Georgetown University. 

Technically, Esposito is the founding director of the "Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding," which already tells you a lot about the man.  Anyone with a decent set would have long told the Saudis just how pathetic this guise of religious tolerance really is, when they won't even allow churches on their own soil.

As for Esposito, just two years before 9/11, the second edition of his book “The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality?” was published.  In it, the professor told a primarily American audience that the threat of Islamic extremism is overblown and that they actually have nothing to fear from the Religion of Peace. 

Only in academia can being so fantastically wrong about something of such tragic significance actually be a boost to one’s career.  Inexplicably, John Esposito found his profile enhanced by the loss of thousands of innocent lives and has since devoted himself to trying to convince Americans that they are the real bigots.  (This evidently delights his Muslim handlers, who find in his writings yet another excuse to put off introspection and reform).

This month, Esposito is promoting his new book “Who Speaks for Islam?  What a Billion Muslims Really Think.”  Not surprisingly, it is Esposito himself who speaks for Islam and, as such, the voice of a ‘billion Muslims’ sounds remarkably similar to his own.  In fact, when it comes to U.S. foreign policy, Western values and the superiority of Islam, the resemblance between Esposito’s personal views and that of a “billion Muslims’ is downright uncanny.

Esposito bases his new book on Gallup polling, which has an objective ring to it at first – up until one discovers that the “Senior Scientist” on the cited Gallup project is none other than Esposito himself.  Having the ability to influence the wording of survey questions yields some rather curious findings, such as the claim that Americans are three times more likely to support the killing of innocent people than are the Iranians, whose country pioneered suicide bombings and whose religion fuels over a thousand deadly attacks on civilians each year.

As with his earlier (pre-9/11) effort, “What a Billion Muslims Really Think” is designed to play on Western tastes and convince readers that they have no reason to be concerned about an ideology with an explicit agenda of political and cultural dominance.  Toward this end, Esposito either glosses over or ignores inconvenient details that might otherwise alarm anyone who is mindful of Islam’s irreversible creep into the West.

For example, the professor makes much of the finding that two out of three Muslims believe that the 9/11 attacks are “morally unjustifiable.”  That a third of all Muslims (almost a half billion people) say they agree to some extent with the carnage seems to be of trivial concern to him.  Esposito also fails to mention the rather critical detail that only 18% of all Muslims believe Muslims were really responsible for 9/11!  Who or what then, are they really condemning?

Many other natural questions go unanswered in the book.  Why do more Muslims oppose the U.S. action in Afghanistan, for example, than they did the brutal attack on New Yorkers and others which prompted it?  If Muslims are so opposed to religious extremism, then why do less than 1 in 10 support the overthrow of the Taliban?  If Muslims place such a high value on the lives of others, then where is the outrage when such attacks occur?  Why hasn’t Osama bin Laden been burned in effigy?

At the end of the day, “What a Billion Muslims Really Think” is really just an exercise in illusion – a parlor trick to fool readers into thinking that they do not see what they see.  By stacking survey questions so as to yield preferred results, Esposito has the advantage of creating the very data to which he then refers.

Even the overall sampling is somewhat suspect.  Esposito claims that his modeling method represents “90% of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims,” which is both patently absurd and a glaring indication of the manipulation taking place behind the scenes.  How is it possible to “include” 1.2 billion people while “excluding” 130 million others?  Who is really being “excluded” when a contrived survey sample of a few thousand is said to be representative of over a billion other people?

Each day, dozens of innocents are murdered explicitly in the name of Islam somewhere in the world, yet in all of the forty countries that lost citizens on 9/11, only one Muslim was killed by one person in revenge for the slaughter on that day.  What explains Islam's violent temper?  In the Sudan, over a million Christians have lost their lives to a Jihad-minded government that has also displaced millions more from their homes – yet sympathy in the Muslim world is reserved only for Palestinians.  What explains Islam's astonishing self-absorption and lack of human empathy?

Hundreds of Westerners have lost their lives on their own soil to Islamic terror in the years since 9/11.  Millions of Muslims overseas celebrated the attacks that day and continue to openly support the thousands of other Muslims who are as determined as ever to commit mass murder in accordance with Qur’an’s expressed hatred for those outside the faith, even as the West sacrifices cherished values to accommodate mass numbers of Muslim immigrants whose gratitude is as weak as their sense of entitlement is conspicuous.

Yet, along comes Professor John Esposito to tell us that it is Westerners who have the tolerance problem.

The Saudis have definitely bought their man.

March 2008 Dhimwit: Network Solutions

The Internet for Dhimmis.

This month we were going to nominate Sally Kern, the judgment-impaired Oklahoma representative who said that the "homosexual agenda" is a bigger threat than Islam.  (We have to give Ms. Kern a few points for originality, however, since homosexuality and Islam are almost never mentioned in the same sentence unless it is to report the lashing or hanging of the former by the latter for the crime of having a private life).

At the last minute, however, another American entity swooped in to save Ms. Kern's bacon. 

Network Solutions is one of the world's prominent Internet services firm.  Apparently they are also in the sensitivity business, which is why they suspended the "Fitna the Movie" website, the venue of choice for Geert Wilder's 15-minute film that (ironically enough) warns of Islam's threat to Western freedom.

It wasn't that the company had actually seen the movie, which they admitted they had not, but rather that they had been getting complaints from Muslims, who... uh... also had not seen the movie. 

So, in effect, Network Solutions banned the site on the mere probability that the content would offend Muslims and not on the basis of whether there is anything in the presentation that is actually libelous.  (In fact, nearly every word in the film comes from the mouth of a Muslim).

Interestingly, Network Solutions had no qualms about hosting the Hamas and Hezbollah websites for the brazen terrorist groups that have slaughtered hundreds of Jews and Christians.  Neither do they mind hosting Islam-Online, an Islamic propaganda site that advocates Sharia and has a pronounced anti-Semitic bent (in other words, what passes for moderate Islam these days).

One might think there would be a bit of offense involved there as well... but apparently Jews and Christians aren't racking up enough dead bodies in the name of their god for their opinion to register on Network Solutions' sensitivity scale.  The new rule is that if you want your religion to have respect, then you have to be willing to kill anyone refusing to begrudge it.

Message received, as far as Network Solutions is concerned.  Muslims now know that critical viewpoints can by blocked from the Internet by intimidation and complaint, so you can bet that there will be plenty more of that.

More importantly, thanks to craven Dhimwits like Network Solutions, who wet their pants at the first sign of trouble, the criteria of censorship has become offense rather than falsehood.  If the truth offends (which is nearly always the case with Islam), then it will be suppressed.

Get ready for a brave, new world.

February 2008 Dhimwit: Rowan Williams

Anglican Archbishop Rowan Williams says its time to bring
Sharia law to Britain.  Aside from Hindus, Christians, Jews, atheists,
artists, homosexuals, drinkers, intellectuals and women, we can't
possibly imagine anyone objecting to such a sensible suggestion.

We aren’t sure what explains the recent enthusiasm with which Anglican Church leaders been bending over to grab their ankles when the subject turns to Islam.  From John Pritchard, the Bishop of Oxford, who wants to hear the Islamic call to prayer echoing across the English countryside from loudspeakers, to Chaplain Philip Gray, who actually compared the 7/7 bombers to Jesus, Anglican clergy are clearly intent on reducing their religion to minority status.

Now, Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, has momentarily outdone the others by proposing that “elements” of Sharia (Islamic law) be allowed to operate independently of British law as a means of placating the restless UK Muslim population.  Presumably he is not speaking of the portions that call for the beheading of apostates, the beating of wives, the amputation of limbs, nor the stoning of homosexuals and adulterers… but where exactly did he get the idea that Sharia is a smorgasbord?

How long does the Archbishop think Muslims will be happy with a government that validates Islamic law, but then tells them which parts they can and can’t practice?  (We advise non-Muslim Brits to either start greasing up early or work on that stiff upper lip, because the smart money is on a very short honeymoon).

Rather than setting the stage for a long series of concessions to Muslim demands, we would suggest an alternative: remind the Muslims in Britain who want to live under Islamic law that there are places in the world where it is practiced.  No one is forcing them to live under the British system.

Now, if it sounds cruel and heartless to tell Muslims to go raise their families in places that are characterized by civil oppression, economic disaster and totalitarianism just so they can experience life in an Islamic country, then, for god's sake, connect the dots!  This is precisely the case against the Muslim way.

We also have a similar suggestion for the Archbishop: don’t drag the rest of us down with you.  If you want to live as a dhimmi, then we’ll gladly pick up the tab on a one-way ticket to Gaza.

January 2008 Dhimwit: Jacqui Smith

More Islam = More "Anti-Islamic activities" (by Muslims)?  Hmmm...

If Dhimwit meant dimwit, then this month's nominee would probably be Republican Mike Huckabee.  While the US Presidential candidate may otherwise be a decent person, his response to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto was downright moronic:

"[The United States should] have an immediate, very clear monitoring of our border, and particularly to make sure, if there's any unusual activity of Pakistanis coming into the country."

This is wrong on so many levels that we could write a book on the subject.  Needless to say, if Bhutto's assassins were of Pakistani origin, then it was completely incidental to their action, which was motivated by religious belief.  Islam is neither a race nor a nationality.

By coincidence, this was also the month that we were tempted to name our first "anti-Dhimwit," who would have been the Pakistani-born Bishop of Rochester, Michael Nazir Ali.  We've been pretty tough on Anglican clergy here, and it would have been nice to finally feature one who stands up and speaks the politically-incorrect truth about Islam.

As it is, however, we couldn't think of a snappy name for our new category of anti-Dhimwits, so we decided to stick with tradition.

Our nominee this month is British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, who is apparently a part-time theologian.  Ms. Smith made the breakthrough discovery that Muslim terrorists are acting contrary to their Islamic faith, thus compelling her to officially re-dub terror attacks as "anti-Islamic activities."  (We thought this was a joke at first).

Obviously this is a cynical attempt to pander to the fast-growing Muslim community in Britain, which is notably less than cooperative in the battle against, uh… anti-Islamic activities.  This is where Smith makes Huckabee look like a genius, since even he can probably tell that if these 'activities' were really so hostile to Islam, then such pandering wouldn't be necessary because British Muslims would be leading the fight to defend their own religion.

Neither is it terribly difficult to figure out that relieving the Muslim community of responsibility for Islamic terrorism merely reduces the incentive for participation and reform.  It also lowers the natural defenses of the native British population, which is encouraged to hit the snooze button while its leaders continue paying Muslim immigrants to colonize the country.

So what used to be known as Islamic terrorism will now be called "anti-Islamic activity."  It isn't exactly clear how long this Orwellian doublespeak is tolerated before it becomes painfully obvious that "anti-Islamic activity" by Muslim terrorists corresponds proportionately to increasing Islamic influence, although, with leaders like Jacqui Smith at the helm, it probably won't make much of a difference anyway.

2007 Dhimwits Page
2006 Dhimwits Page
2005 Dhimwits Page

Go back to the List of Islamic Terrorist Attacks

TOP