Here is Jihad Watch Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald's take on Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah's complaint that terrorists are tarnishing the image of Islam:
It's too late for the likes of Abdullah to any longer prettify Islam. Too many people can now read the Qur'an and hadith, for they are on-line. Too many people are finally fed up with the likes of Esposito and Armstrong or the endless propagandists, including that triumvirate of transparent propagandists, Rashid Khalidi at Columbia, Rami Khoury at the Daily Star in Beirut, and Fawaz Gerges (like Khoury an “islamochristian” who parrots the Muslim agenda and view of things, but with a broader grimace). These are the ones who want us to keep focusing on the putative sins of Israel and the “centrality” of that matter -- when a glance around the from Beslan to Amsterdam to Madrid to Kashmir to southern Sudan to northern Nigeria to the Balkans to New York, to Washington, to southern Thailand causes us to realize that the war against Israel is only a local expression of a world-wide totalitarian belief-system whose adherents firmly believe in the right, as Muhammad says, of “Islam to dominate and not to be dominated.” Naturally the Arabs would prefer that Infidels learn nothing about the tenets of Islam, still less about the treatment of non-Muslims under Muslim rule, over 1350 years, and from Spain to Indonesia, and to keep the high-beams on that little affair of little Israel.But Infidels are not having it any longer. “J’en ai marre” – I’m fed up – that is what they are saying even in France, if the always-perspicacous Yvan Rioufol’s latest column in Figaro is to be trusted. They have come to realize that neither their governments, nor many of the apologists for Islam now teaching in Western universities, will offer any guidance or real instruction. So they are studying that belief-system on their own. It is not, after all, impossible to learn what hundreds of millions of others have learned. And it is nonsense for defenders of Islam to suggest that "only" native speakers of Arabic can read the texts when 70-80% of the world's Muslims cannot read Arabic, and that one now has available, on-line, and side-by-side, four or five translations of the Qur'an, and at the same site, Bukhari's Hadith, and elsewhere, one can find other hadith, as well as the sira (the sacralized biography) of Muhammad. And further, for insight into the mindset of many Muslims, to understand the quality of its logic, the nature of its reasoning power, the worldview that Islam encourages, Infidels can now go to Muslim websites and be amused, or horrified, or both.
Michael Sells may put out a sanitized version of the Qur'an and the apologists at the University of North Carolina may force this utterly misleading text on the hapless freshmen (is there no faculty member willing to protest this outrage -- in, for example, the History Department?). But we are not Chapel Hill freshmen, meek and mild, and neither Sells, nor Carl Ernst, nor the rest of the members of MESA can any longer control what we read, and what we learn. And they know perfectly well that the most distinguished scholars of Islam or of Muslim history in America -- including MIchael Cook, Patricia Crone, and Bernard Lewis -- however much even these people mind their backs and pull their punches out of all sorts of considerations and apprehensions -- know the truth of the matter far more than the Rashid Khalidis and the Roy Mottahedehs (unkind, one knows, to put his name in the same sentence with a crude propagandist like Khalidi, but Mottahedeh should know better—after all, he quotes Robert Benchley). The army of apologists of Islam, both Muslim and non-Muslim, abroad in the Western world, is simply being ignored. For their predictions (pooh-poohing any problem with militant Islam for the past several decades) and their analyses simply are false, and now can easily be seen to be false. There is just too much data that does not fit their theories -- such as the "theory" that the Arab war on Israel explains Muslim hatred of America or the West. Now that Muslim aggression against non-Muslims everywhere in the world is out in the open, and now that there is greater understanding of the war against the Infidels -though as yet a full comprehension of the 1350-year history of Muslim subjugation of non-Muslims is not yet widely comprehended -- many statements that might have passed a decade ago, or five years ago, or even two years ago, are simply going to be met with incredulity and suspicion. Even the doctrines of taqiyya and kitman can be found widely discussed on-line -- and with the name, comes the concept, and once the concept is understood, the mixture as before of nonsense and lies cannot any longer continue to succeed. All over the Western world, some triggering event -- such as the murder of Theo van Gogh -- is waking Infidels up. Some still choose to deny, out of fear of what full understanding would then require them to do, if they are to save their own civilisation, but the numbers of those still capable, with a straight face, in parroting nonsense is perhaps smaller among the led and the ruled, than among the leaders and the rulers. It is they who need to change their rhetoric, and they who need to reflect, in their own policies, what so many ordinary Dutch, Italians, French, English, Russians -- and Americans -- have come to understand, not because of government efforts to whip them up against Islam, but despite the best efforts of governments and the media to prevent them from learning the full, unsettling truth about the tenets of Islam. More Muslims in the Lands of the Infidels must inevitably mean, for those indigenous Infidels, a rise in daily friction, in unpleasantness, in collisions, in huge and growing security costs (including the costs of police, guards at railroads and airports and subways and bus stations, and to guard Jewish schools, and Christian schools, and synagogues, and churches, and outspoken political figures, and all the rest), and in greater physical danger (Beslan, Moscow, Madrid, New York, Washington, Bali, southern Thailand, churches in Iraq, Pakistan, and Sudan). Ultimately the Shari’a is incompatible with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, with the American Constitution, and with the Declaration of the Rights of Man. How one can, with a straight face, pretend that adherents of a belief-system that directly contradicts all of those, and that preaches that “Islam must dominate and is not to dominate,” and that Muslims owe all their loyalty to fellow Muslims, can somehow “integrate” or “be integrated” into Western society – without fatally changing, for the worse, the nature of that society – is hard to understand.
And it is too late, for the Abdullahs of this world, to suppress the accumulated scholarsihp of the past, scholarship of French, English, American, German, Dutch, Italian, Russian, Bulgarian, Rumanian, Greek, Serbia, Spanish, Indian students of aspects of Islamic conquest, or of the Muslim belief-system, or of the remarkably similar treatment, over 1350 years of conquest and subjugation, of non-Muslims under Muslim rule. What Mary Boyce discovered amounted to a history of massacre, persecution, and slow asphyixation of the Zoroastrians -- adherents of the original state religion of Iran -- under Islam, is remarkably similar to what the Christians and Jews of the MIddle East and North Africa and of the Balkans endured. The Hindus of India, under the 250 years of Mughal rule, had it still worse, with 60-70 million killed over that period. The use now made not only of Muslim sources, but of non-Muslim sources (e.g. the chronicler Arakel of Tabriz, the treasure-trove of the Cairo Geniza that Goitein so thoroughly investigated, the Infidel diplomats who, for the past two hundred years, have been sending back reports from the Muslim world -- at least, until diplomats in the last 40 years became the hirelings of Arab states). Bat Ye'or, the world's leading student of dhimmitude, has in her three previous books -- The Dhimmi, Islam and Dhimmitude, The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam -- been undeterred by the cold shoulder shown her by many.
As for "tarnishing the image of Islam" -- Abdullah should think for a moment, and just imagine what it might be like to be a non-Muslim who now has begun to read, with intelligent comprehension, the Qur'an, the hadith, and the sira. And to read some of the commentaries. And to read Schacht, Margoliouth, Noldeke, Bousquet, Lal, Bell, Blachere, Muir, Goldziher, Fagnan, Hurgronje, Wensinck, Zwemer, Jeffery, Bat Ye'or, and a hundred others. Were all of these French, British, American, German, Dutch, Italian scholars (and Spanish, Bulgarian, Russian, Rumanian, Czech, Polish, and Danish scholars of Islam and Muslim history could just as easily have had their names been added ) simply attempting to "tarnish the image" of Islam?
Islam is a totalitarian belief-system. It emphasizes the collective; it refuses the autonomy of individual conscience. Believers cannnot ever leave the Army of Islam -- they must stay as Muslims or face severe punishment, even death. It is a belief-system based on dominance -- of men over women, but even more, of Believers over Unbelievers or Infidels. Its model, Muhammad, was a warrior who preached that "war is deception," who tricked and took pride in tricking his trusting enemies, who ordered the assassination even of those who did nothing against him, including old men and women, who distributed booty from conquest, who oversaw approvingly the massacre of hundreds of helpless prisoners, who -- and all of the relevant quotations are available online at many websites -- married Aisha when she was six, and had intercourse with her when she was nine.
Does the sira of Muhammad, in Abdullah's eyes, given that Muhammad is a model for all men for all time, "tarnish the image of Muhammad"? What about the massacre of hundreds of children at Beslan -- or two dozen at Ma'alot in 1974? What about the decapitations, with Qur'anic justification, that we see all over Iraq? And the murders of Pim Fortuyn and now Theo van Gogh, with political figures being threatened by Muslims all over Europe -- even now, when the Muslims make up only 10-15% of the population in France, Holland, and elsewhere?
As it says in Luke: "If they do this when the wood is green, what will happen when the wood is dry?" If Muslims in Europe behave with the same violence and hatred, and threats even now --what will it be like, if their numbers continue to grow through overbreeding and Da'wa among the economically and psychically marginal, for the Infidel peoples, and civilisations, of Europe?
"Tarnish the image" -- a little matter, no doubt, of more Saudi money being spread around among ex-diplomats and government officials and all the willing hirelings to be found in the capitals of the West -- who unless exposed, ridiculed, and forced to disgorge their treasonous profits (and why not? Why not sue someone who, as a diplomat or C.I.A. agent, misinformed his country as part of an unstated deal, so that after retirement he could receive Saudi emoluments?) will continue to offer the mixture as before.
But this time, one suspects, it will not work. Not for assorted Abdullahs and Fahds and Muhammads and Husseins and Fawzis, all over the place, nor for their handmaidens at Columbia and Georgetown and at the Quai d'Orsay, and the BBC, and RFI. It's just too late.
Here is a bit more of the information that it is too late to hide:
http://www.apostatesofislam.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=661
FREE, ONLINE BOOKS ABOUT ISLAM:
A selection:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/library.htm
"Sirat Rasoul Allah", The earliest biography of Muhammad, An abridged version:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sira/index.htm
"The Life of Muhammad", Sir William Muir:
http://www.answering-islam.org.uk/Books/Muir/Life1/
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Books/Muir/Life2/
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Books/Muir/Life3/
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Books/Muir/Life4/
"The Coran, Its Composition and Teaching, and the Testimony it Bears to the Holy Scriptures" by Sir William Muir:
http://answering-islam.org/Books/Muir/Coran/
"The Historical Development of the Qur'an" by Edward Sell:
http://answering-islam.org/Books/Sell/Development/
"The Millennium Biography" , Modern Islamic Biography of Muhammad:
http://www.islamic-paths.org/Home/English/Muhammad/Book/Millennium_Biography/TOC.htm
"Jihad - The Islamic Doctrine of Permanent War" by Suhas Majumdar:
http://www.nojihad.com/library/doctrine/doctrine.htm
"The Origin of Islam in its Christian Environment" by Richard Bell:
http://muhammadanism.org/bell/origin/p000i.htm
"Islam - The Arab National Movement" by Anwar Shaikh:
http://www.islamreview.org/AnwarShaikh/arabnationalism/
"The Collection of the Qur'an - from the hadiths" by John Burton:
http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Collection/index.html
"Milestones", by Sayyid Qutb (and many more texts by leading Islamists):
http://www.islamistwatch.org/texts/qutb/Milestones/index.html
"In the Shade of the Qur'an" - Koran commentary (tafsir) by Sayyid Qutb:
http://www.youngmuslims.ca/online_library/tafsir/syed_qutb/index.htm
"Finality of Prophethood" by Syed Abul 'Ala Maudoodi:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/prophet/finalprophet.html
Syed Abu-Ala' Maududi's Chapter Introductions to the Qur'an:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/maududi/
"Mishkat Al-Anwar (The Niche for Lights)" by Ghazzali:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/isl/mishkat/
More than 400 Free online books from Islamic point of view:
http://www.islammessage.com/books/e/Bookslist.htm
ISLAMIC SOURCES:
The Koran, in three English translations:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/
Look up 8 Koran translations at the same time:
http://quranbrowser.com/
More Koran:
http://www.ummah.net/what-is-islam/quran/neindex.htm
http://www.road-to-heaven.com/noblequran.htm
http://www.quraan.com/
http://www.free-minds.org/quran/quran.htm
Transliteration (Arabic words written in Latin letters) of the Koran:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/transliteration/
http://transliteration.org/quran/home.htm
The renowned tafsir (Koran commentary and explanation) of Ibn Kathir:
http://tafsir.com/
A non-Muslim, critical view of the Koran:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/quran_teaches.htm
The Koran's 164 Jihad Verses:
http://www.angelfire.com/moon/yoelnatan/koranwarpassages.htm
http://www.secularislam.org/jihad/index.htm
The ahadith (Traditions about Muhammad and his companions) of al-Bukhari and others:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/searchhadith.html
About the Sunna (The example of Muhammad and his companions) and jurisprudence:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/law/fiqhussunnah/
Some Shia Muslim resources:
Shia Library
http://al-shia.com/html/eng/index.php?
Sunni website critical of Shias:
http://www.allaahuakbar.net/shiites/word_of_advice_to_shiites.htm
http://www.allaahuakbar.net/shiites/index.htm
http://www.allaahuakbar.net/shiites/KAFI.HTM
Shia ahadith (Traditions about Muhammad and his companions) of Al kafi:
http://hahsim.s5.com/kafi.html
Sayings of Imam Ali (Muhammad's son-in-law, first Shia Imam):
http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul/index.htm
Shia tafsir (Koran commentary and explanation):
http://www.almizan.org/
Other:
http://www.al-islam.org/short/martyrdom/
http://al-islam.org/ashura/
DEFINITIONS OF ARABIC-ISLAMIC TERMS, HISTORICAL INFORMATION:
Thomas P. Hughes' "Dictionary of Islam":
http://answering-islam.org/Books/Hughes/index.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamic_terms_in_Arabic
http://www.knowislam.info/drupal/mno
Encyclopaedia of the Orient:
http://lexicorient.com/e.o/
Atlas of the Orient:
http://lexicorient.com/e.o/atlas/index.htm
http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/dictiona.htm
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/islam/islamsbook.html
ABOUT THE ARABIC LANGUAGE AND ALPHABET:
http://dictionary.ajeeb.com/en.asp
http://www.ectaco.com/online/diction.php3?refid=532&lang=3
Online automatic translators. Note that these automatic translators are far from flawless, but they can still be useful in certain situations:
http://www.systranbox.com/systran/box
http://www.free-translator.com/
How to write and pronounce Arabic:
http://www.funwitharabic.com/alphabet.html
http://www.i-cias.com/babel/arabic/
Write with Arabic keyboard:
http://www.arabicdictionaries.com/arabickeyboard.htm
The history of the Arabic alphabet and script:
http://www.omniglot.com/writing/arabic.htm
http://www.ancientscripts.com/arabic.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_language
The differences between Classical (Koran) Arabic, written Modern Standard Arabic and Colloquial Arabic (spoken dialects):
http://www.pacificarabic.com/resources/diglossia.html
http://slate.msn.com/id/2063956
http://i-cias.com/cgi-bin/eo-direct.pl?arabic.htm
I too agree it's far too late to opine about how Islam is being unfairly tarnished by the "BAD" muslims that "Hijacked" Islam.
After 9/11 I was willing to be open minded and learn about Islam and Muslims,within two days I found English sites for the Quran and read extremely antisemitic verses and overt requests to kill the unbelivers in Allahs war for an Islamic ruled world.
Several websites wouldn't post a biography for Muhammed that was in English,but I did search Middle East sites and used a Arabic page that allowed for those that also knew English.
The truth about Muhammed was scary and little is said about his obsession with sex and pedophilia
when Western Muslims and Imam's cite the Quran.
CAIR is here to spread Islam and dominate America,they don't give a damn about injustice and poverty for non-Muslims and are more than willing to volunteer as a victim to parrot their War-Cry of "Racism" and "Islamophobia" .
The prison have far too many Muslim in them and charities ahve too mant connection to Islamists and Militant wings of Islam.
Islam can van-GOGH 2 hell
November 21, 2004
http://www.beecy.net/frank/
Costa Rico has an Earthquake Last night Spain and others were there as well as [Iran] to talk about selling out Israel? Now if that is not a sign??
Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
God Bless the USA and her Fighting Forces and ALL who Fight with her give them Strength,Wisdom,Sight and Courage to stay the course to Victory to Destory ALL Islamic Terrorist and ALL who Support them Open the Worlds Eyes to their Threat and give them Strength to Stand and Fight Amen
PS
US just caught 3 guys in Bagdad keep your Fingers crossed??
PSS
Look at the past empires who sold Israel out all fell? Egypt,Roma,Europe,Russia and now again Europe with the Mulsum lands being the worst look at the poor people Bablon still today?
Awesome piece, Hugh!
My sincere appreciation.
Voletti
ALL:
PLEASE GO TO www.americasupportsyou.mil AND SEND A SUPPORTIVE MESSAGE TO OUR TROOPS.
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS
They have come to realize that neither their governments, nor many of the apologists for Islam now teaching in Western universities, will offer any guidance or real instruction
Infidels can now go to Muslim websites and be amused, or horrified, or both.
Posted at November 21, 2004 01:43 PM-Hugh
I was appalled that in a
forum-,........ at a military history enthusiast website. (one would think it couldn't help but be "uber-patriotic") ......there would STILL exist even ONE apologist.
http://www.rleeermey.org/viewtopic.php?t=3814&start=30
source:
http://www.rleeermey.org/viewforum.php?f=61
Once it degenerated into the "Armageddon -theory- catholic conspiracy path ,and I found Uber was 18.... my disbelief at finding an apologist At R Lee's site was assuaged.
BUT....still many are stuck in this
"they are like us" mindset. A media transformation across the planet needs to happen.
faster.
Hugh! And of course Robert... I end with a thank you for the invaluable on-going clarification of the dimly lit beast hiding in the shadows that is
right here everywhere right now .
This last Hugh post provides much hope for a speedier recovery from a global conflict that has prettymuch halted the human race on progress towards truly momentous discoveries and rewards they generate.For every year the earth spends in this struggle we Loose 7 to 10 years of VERY important next steps.
There is NO progress outside the moral order.
It will be very difficult for a morally weak "West" to defeat Islam.
Steeped in the quick fixes of abortion, euthanasia, fornication, drug abuse, etc. the West belongs to those who control the passions
of the masses.
Hugh - Magnificent post. Thank you again, for helping us to understand the events of the world by putting them in context.
Robert - Thank you again for giving us this window on the world.
Ali Dashti- Thank you for the many links that give us further enlightenment.
Peggy:
Hitler controlled the passions of his masses and laid similar claims to moral superiority over the countries that opposed his putrid totalitarianism. It took some doing, but in the end, he went down, defeated by the forces of pluralism and tolerance.
OT but now I know why Prince Charles likes Islam so much.
An aide said about Prince Charles "His biggest flaw is that he is steeped in self-pity, and believes that everyone else is to blame for his problems."
Sounds like your typical muslim to me.
Hugh:
I remember one of the first articles that I read about islam that you had written began with the old joke about the woman coming home to find her husband in bed with another woman. The husband calmly denied any wrongdoing and asked: "Are you going to believe what I'm telling you or your lying eyes?" I think that introduction said it all about islam. Now where may I find that article again?
posted by peggy:
"There is NO progress outside the moral order.
It will be very difficult for a morally weak "West" to defeat Islam."
Peggy, did it ever occur to you that this is exactly why Islam has arisen at this time in history to do? Is it not possible that Islam is a trial for Christendom to face in order to get its act together? As morally weak as the West is, it is a "get your act together now" or die kind of challenge. This sort of threat often provides people with the correct impetus to learn they actually prefer their way of life and thinking to that of an inferior barbarous path. It will be touch and go, but in the end the West will emerge much chastened by the ordeal.
oops... I left out a word: "the West will emerge victorious but much chastened by the ordeal."
This article validates what I am seeing through many sources. It's amazing to me that anyone would become a muslim. One explanation may be that the brainwashed joiners are the type that need to be led, having no productive lives of their own. It seems to be along the lines of joining the mafia. The mafia knows how to control its members (consider the methods of John Gotti) and to take care of its own, so maybe the idea of joining an organization that destroys its enemies without regard for any humane reasoning is the motivation.
It is always apalling to me to see the mainstream news play into the hands of a person like Osama bin Laden. Whenever he makes a tape, the response of civilized countries should be something like: "...the great oppressor and enemy of civil existence, the man whose organization is pervertedly obsessed with death, has made another tape and we suppose that he expects everyone to listen...well it's much too late for this tyrant to convince us that he has anything worthwhile to impart. We won't be playing any of his messages and we won't be showing you his picture anymore".
Great piece Hugh!
If only we could get it into a newspaper or something more mainstream, as many people as possible NEED to read it!
PS heretolearnandenjoy - The comparason with the mafia is very valid. Islam and the mafia are:-
- Corrupt
- Based on self-propigating lies and use embezzeled shady finances.
- Spread rapidly if unchecked
- Work on the basis of taking from people who are not part of the religion/organised crime syndicate
- Seek to stifle their critics oponents (eg Van Gough, numerous Neapolitan or Scilian lawyers)
- Ruthlessly kill converts (who leave Islam) or informants within mafia families
- Have oaths of loyalty geared to keep loyalty confined within the religion / mafia family
- Try to corrupt outsiders to futher their growth (eg Saudis & Diplomats, Mafia and Police networks)
just to name a few
*police networks = bent cops.
There is NO progress outside the moral order.
It will be very difficult for a morally weak "West" to defeat Islam.
Steeped in the quick fixes of abortion, euthanasia, fornication, drug abuse, etc. the West belongs to those who control the passions
of the masses.
Posted by: peggy at November 21, 2004 03:
Peggy, since "there is NO progress outside the moral order", perhaps that explains the deplorable state of affairs in every Islamic country today. Every one, despite immense wealth from oil revenues, is a stagnated, retrograde, archaic cesspool of corruption, depravity, and anachronisms. They are centuries behind the West in every respect and ISLAM is to blame for their pathetic circumstances.
The West, with all its foibles, invented morality. Morality is nonexistent in Islam, unless you consider murder, rape, misogyny, lying, slavery, totalitarianism, xenophobia, and pedophilia to be enviable examples of morality.
The Islamic value system resonates immorality and barbaric savagery.
When I compare the "passions of the masses" in Western societies to Islamic societies, I see a profound difference. Islam has nothing to offer the world but war, hate, death, and ignorance. In fact, when I think of Islam, God does not even come to mind.
Great article, and responses.
I do agree with Susanp and Waterdragon52, if the side that is the least moral loses, we are fine, despite the fact that we are spoiled rotten.
Pluralism and tolerance ( thanks W52) are our strengths, and our weaknesses.
It is the weakness of pluralism and tolerance that islam is taking advantage of as it extends its hold over our society, very slowly and very surely.
This is a planned invasion and takeover of the western world by people who are thinking in terms of generations. Our governments, our people, have yet to understand this, and the time that we have to respond to this internal poisoning is getting very short.
Soon in America it will be as in Canada, where the political parties see so many muslim votes to be won, far more than Jewish for example, that they know which way to play it. So the political paralysis, and the creeping islamization of Canada.
By the way, Ms. Parrish, the American hating member of parliament, received massive backing from muslims in her electoral riding, muslims who, pardon my laughter, are members of the " Liberal Party of Canada ", and backed her selection as the Liberal candidate, useing intimidation among other tactics, against those who supported her opponent.
Also, speaking of creeping islamization, is everyone aware that in China the one child per family rule applies to all Chinese except muslims, who can have all the children they want, and are.
The documentary that aired this evenning on Fox was a good start.
The 4 documentaries series that will start on Fox next tuesday,i hope,will be even better.
I also hope that other media outlets will follow suit,and eventhough that is very unlikely,this is a very good sign that America is slowly waking up.
Thankyou for the above article.
I feel I need to make a small,but very important observation
70-80% of the world's Muslims cannot read Arabic,my guess is
70-80% of the world's Muslims cannot read
They are taught to recite the koran,not to understand it.
There is an old joke,A CLASSIC!!!!!!
So Michelle#### It was also this article that dragged me into JW and comfirmed what i had been suspecting for a long time.
Hugh!I hope you do not mind me posting it,as it had great impact on me,thanks
There is an old joke: a wife returns home suddenly to find her husband in bed with another woman. Unfazed, the husband looks up from the sheets at her and, with great indignation, demands: Who are you going to believe? Me, or your lying eyes? It seems to me that right now almost the entire world is like that wife, looking down at that husband, who represents Islam.
As we look around the world at the veritable orgy of violence directed at Infidels - from the killings of 200,000 Christians in East Timor, the murders of Christians in the Moluccas, the bomb in Bali directed mostly at Australian Christians, the attack on Filipino Christian peasants in the Philippines, the plots uncovered in Singapore, the Christians, Sikhs, and Hindus persecuted and often murdered by Muslims in Kashmir and Pakistan, the attacks on Jews all over the Muslim world, but especially in the Arab world, the attacks on non-Muslims, 800 of whom were held hostage in a Moscow theatre, the attacks in New York and Washington, that killed 3000, the plots uncovered in Spain, and Italy, and France, and Holland, and Norway, and Germany, and almost everywhere in the Infidel world - all tell us one thing. Yet, the world of organized Islam, including those we are repeatedly told are "moderate", keep telling us: Who are you going to believe? Us, or your lying eyes? I propose today to offer a Guide for the Perplexed among you. I will talk about several things. First, I will offer a kind of taxonomy - a la Linnaeus - of the different kinds of apologetics for Islam, some made by Muslims, some made by non-Muslims who act as their willing collaborators.
I will then go on to discuss the main features of Islam which an Infidel need not worry about - the Five Pillars of Islam, which all concern individual worship, and which so much unnecessary attention is given, while the real essence of Islam, the basic political attitudes and preachings concerning the Infidels, are almost entirely ignored. Then I shall suggest why the Infidel world has to educate itself - not from agents of Islam, just as one would not study the Soviet Union by learning from KGB agents, but only from defectors from the KGB - and how we, the Infidels, need to protect ourselves in two very basic ways, and then what else we can do to go on the offensive against Islam, to weaken it, to cause it to divide within, and to keep it permanently at bay. Because this is not a struggle that will end in a year or a decade, or indeed, I think, ever. Islam has over a billion believers. It is in a campaign to spread Islam within the Infidel world, a campaign until now not sufficiently recognized or opposed. But I will get to that later. First, let me explain the various kinds of Muslim apologetics. After the attack of September 11, 2001, many different things were said in defense of Islam.
One thing that was repeated, endlessly and mindlessly - and if you have a mind in this area, you are likely to suffer more worry, more woe; indeed, gore ot uma deistvitel'no gore ot uma - was that Islam is a religion of "peace" and "tolerance." Well, yes, and no. The "peace" that Muslims mean is not the kind of "peace" we mean. It is the "peace" or pax Islamica that will reign once the entire world accepts Islam, and Islam rules. As for "tolerance" - yes, it is true that Muslims will "tolerate" Christians and Jews-or at least they did in high Islamic civilizations. But that "tolerance" had nothing, has nothing, to do with Western ideas of "tolerance." Chirsitnas and Jews were kept in the status of second-class citizens, deliberately humiliated, and subjected to a host of requirements. First, there was a heavy financial burden. The "dhimmi" or tolerated Christian or Jew, had to pay a jizyah or head tax. After a while, this lead to many conversions. After all, if you lived in a country, and had to pay 50 or 100 thousand dollars each year, just to keep practicing a certain religion, you too might, in the year 900 or 1100 or 1300, give up your religion. Only the most stubborn would continue. Then, too, you were not equal to a Muslim at law, and could not testify against him. Then, too, you often had to wear special identifying clothes or signs on your clothes. Christians often had to wear a special belt. The yellow star for Jews, which Gospodin Gitler imposed, had its first use in medieval Baghdad. Then you could not build your synagogues or churches higher than any mosque, or indeed, behave as individuals or as a community, as other than a "tolerated" minority - one that could be subject to attack, and frequently was, at any time. But the truth of this "tolerance" is almost never discussed. When a great expert, such as Bat Ye'or, tries to deliver a lecture, as she did recently at Georgetown, she was shouted down by organized groups of Muslim Arabs, and could hardly speak. Instead of defending her, the students, Jews and Christians, later apologized for her "views" which they thought were "unworthy" and "hateful" - but Bat Ye'or is the world's greatest expert, a famous historian , on the subject of treatment of minorities in the Islamic world, from the earliest times to the present. Along with this denial of certain realities, there is another technique. Focus on the presumed links of Islam with Judaism and Christianity. For example, offer such treacly notions as "we are all children of Abraham" or "we all worship the same God." Sounds good, doesn't it? But it isn't true. Muslims believe that Moses and David and Jesus were previous prophets, but imperfect prophets, received imperfectly by Christians and Jews. Islam is the final, the perfect revelation, and even though it incorporates the other, older monotheisms by recognizing its figures as important prophets (but denying, for example, Jesus' divinity) it actually takes them over, appropriates them, and assigns them the value it wants.
By taking over all these figures from the other two monotheisms, it denies their validity within the earlier religions, just the way the Muslims have deliberately appropriated the Temple Mount in Jerusalem as a sacred site in Islam, even though this is all based on one obscure passage in the Koran about Muhammed' s Night Journey to Heaven on his winged steed Al-Buraq, from a site that is not identified but later they decided to claim it must have been in Jerusalem. As a religion that was seeking converts among Jews and Christians in the 7th and 8th centuries, naturally Islam had to recognize, and use for its own purposes, bits and pieces of the doctrines of both religions, and its holy figures, and even holy sites - but it has taken them over, and regards with obvious hostility, as any reading of the Koran would show, both Jews and Christians, to a murderous extent. Along with denial of any hostility, and focusing on those features which presumably link Islam with Judaism and Christianity - and so they do, but not in a way that should cause us to think everything is okay, there is another technique.
That is to focus not on the central tenets of Islam which make it a threat to Infidels, but precisely on those features which are unthreatening. For example, Imams at local mosques, and Muslim professors supposedly explaining Islam, will spend a lot of time discussing the features of individual worship, the so-called Five Pillars of Islam. These Pillars are relatively simple; they consist of the Shehada, or Profession of Faith; zakat, or alms-giving, salat, or the five canonical prayers, Ramadan, or the annual monthly fast; and, if you can afford it, the hajj to Mecca at least once in your life. Now think for a moment. Does giving alms, or going to Mecca, or observing Ramadan, or saying prayers, bother you at all, as an Infidel? No, not at all. What do we care? But by focusing on these essentially trivial matters, we ignore the much darker and sinister aspects. It is as if the Vatican, trying to answer questions as to why the Church did almost nothing to stop Hitler, or why it even actively promoted anti-Semitism, were to begin speaking about the Eucharist, or the difference between how the Orthodox cross themselves, and how Catholics do it. A complete red herring. Then there is still another brand of apologetics. This is not to deny that Muslims may be guilty of some crimes, or even that Islam itself may not have some doctrines that are dangerous. But instead, the argument is invoked that everyone does it, the Roman Tu Quoque (YOU TOO DO IT). How many of you know that anecdote about the American tourist who is being taken around Moscow by an official guide in the 1930s. The guide takes him to the Moscow Metro. He shows him the gleaming marble walls and fountains. He shows him the chandeliers. Everything is clean. Everything is sparkling. Everything is beautiful. But the American asks: "But where are the trains?" The KGB Guide quickly answers: "What about lynching in the South?" That is how Islam today is behaving -when asked about the reality, it says: What about lynching in the South? Isn't the Old Testament, especially in Leviticus, full of bloodthirsty talk? Aren't there persecutionst by Christians (the Muslims seem to overlook the fact that the victims of that persecution were not Muslims, who were constantly attacking Western Christendom, but rather the Jews, whom Muslims nowadays speak of with genocidal hatred).
So: the arguments consist of
1) denial of the truth
2) pretending that only a small fraction of Muslims are extremists, and most deplore Bin Laden and the rest, when in fact Muslims all over the Arab world were delirious with joy at the attacks on New York and Washington, just as 80% of the Palestinian Arabs applaud suicide bombing, and Arabs everywhere continue to applaud Muslim terrorism.
3) using the Tu Quoque argument - You do it too (most Christians and Jews are eager to agree, and to believe that "we are all guilty."
Some of you may remember Nabokov's examples of poshlost': such as "we all share in Germany's guilt." No, we don't. We didn't. And there is no other major religion in the world that takes, as central tenets of its beliefs, an open and incessant hatred and contempt and desire to subjugate the non-believer, as does Islam. Let me turn to the second topic, which is the central political tenets of Islam. Let me first mention the Qur'an. If you read the Qur'an, you must do so with notes. It cannot be read unaided. It is quite literally an incomrepehensible document, for about 20% of its content. No Muslims have been able even to explain it. Whether you accept the traditional Muslim view of its origins - which as Infidels we obviously do not - there is even a question as to whether there was a historical Muhammad, and much of the most recent Western scholarship, such as that by Michael Cook and Patricia Crone at Princeton, suggest that the Qur'an is a concoction from about a century after Muhammad supposedly lived, that it consists largely of fragments of Jewish and Christian lore, mixed up, sometimes confused, and that it came about after the Arabs began conquering their neighbors, as an ideology both to explain, and to justify, the conquests of first, the pagans of the Hejaz, and then of the Jews and Christians in the area of Mesopotamia, or modern Iraq. It is probably in the Fertile Crescent that the Qur'an actually came from, according to this modern, and obviously entirely non-Muslim, scholarship. Equally important, however, are the hadith - the sayings and traditions associated with Muhammad, as handed down through a chain of narrators. This narration-chain - A said to B who said to C who said to D, depends, of course, on the quality of the first narrator, or A, who usually has to have been one of the original Companions of the Prophet. The entire narration-chain or isnad, will have to be studied, and Islamic scholars do study them, to see if the chain is authentic, in their view. And these hadith, of which there are many tens of thousands, obviously include many that are apocryphal, not authentic. Indeed, almost all of them are tales told about what Muhammad did, or said, made up after his life (if indeed he is a real figure), to in essence expand upon, or help interpret, the Koran.
Now the Qur'an contains many suras, or chapters. Some of these were apparently written first, and are somewhat more mild in their hostility to the Infidels. The later suras are definitely uncompromising. Given that there are many passages that seem to contradict each other, we may ask: how does a Muslim decide which passages are the ones that are true, or to be followed, if they are all dictated by God? The solution has been to invoke the doctrine of ABROGATION - that is, the later Suras abrogate, or in a sense OVERRULE, the earlier, more moderate suras. But here is what is interesting. Muslim and non-Muslim apologists will always quote the same passages, and the same hadith, to "prove" to the Infidel that Islam is a tolerant religion. Let me give just two examples. At one point in the Qur'an it says: "There shall be no compulsion in religion." That is often quoted, as supposedly showing that Islam does not believe in forcing others to convert. It is also directly contradicted by hundreds of OTHER verses in the Qur'an, that came later, and that are taken by most Muslims as the final word. We have only to look at how Islam has treated minorities, and the various ways - the taxes, the special clothes, the inequality at law, all the deliberate signs of subjugation and humiliation to which other "Ahl al-Kitab" or "People of the Book" must undergo, to show that of course there is compulsion in religion. Indeed, Muslims themselves, throughout history, have been punished by death if they have tried to leave Islam --- the death sentence has been imposed in Saudi Arabia, in Kuwait, in Pakistan, in Indonesia, and elsewhere, for Muslims who have trieed to become Christians. Of course there is "compulsion in religion" in Islam. It could not be otherwise. If you possess the truth, Islam, and Islam must be everywhere victorious, you will use force in such a worthy cause. The other standard quote is about the Jihad. In one hadith Muhammad is described as returning from combat to his domestic life. It is written that he said "I am returning from the Lesser Jihad to the Greater Jihad." This supposedly means: the real Jihad is the struggle you fight within yourself, to be a good Muslim, and not the Jihad of warfare." Now this is ridiculous. Jihad has always meant to believing Muslims, and is used to day, to mean conducting warfare - by all means available - to spread Islam. For the central political tenet of Islam is that there must be uncompromising hostility between the Dar al-Islam, or Lands of Islam, and the Dar al-Harb, or Lands of the Infidels. It is the duty of Muslims, the religious duty, to constantly expand the Dar al-Islam at the expense of the Dar al-Harb. This does not mean you must kill every last Infidel.
If you can take control of their lands, and create conditions so that Muslim rule and the Muslim Holy Law, or shari'a, can be imposed, so that Islam will take over in those territories, that is enough. Now the conflict between Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb can not ever end until Islam covers the globe. So even if all of Israel were to disappear, and Kashmir be given to Pakistan, and all the Christians expelled from Indonesia and the Philippines, this would mean nothing. It would only whet, rather than sate, the appetite. Islam must control Australia, and China, and Japan. It must cover all of Africa. It must, and through demography it might, take over all of Europe - and then, of course, the final struggle will be with the United States, the most powerful Infidel state, and the only one willing, it seems, to confront Islam, because it is the only one where there is a critical mass of people who are beginning to understand the real problem that Islam poses. The weapon of Islam is the Jihad. It means, literally, "struggle," but it is not innocent, any more than "Mein Kampf" meant innocently "My Struggle." It is more sinister, rather like that bor'ba za mir I druzhbu, about which you do not need any further explanation. It is mentioned 28 times in the Qur 'an, always in connection with combat, or qital. However, combat is not the only form of struggle. When your enemies are too powerful, you may use other means in the Jihad. For example, "wealth" or economic warfare is to be employed, and is specifically discussed. This means economic boycotts-as of Israel. It means bribery - as the bribing of diplomats who are accredited to Saudi Arabia and then go back to their Western countries as Saudi agents, including almost every single American ambassador since the early 1970s, with the honorable exception of Hume Horan. It includes the bribery of CIA officials, including those, such as Raymond Close, who were stationed in Saudi Arabia. It means bribes to African diplomats and others at the U.N. It means using their vast oil wealth to build mosques everywhere, especially in the heart of Rome, Paris and London, as a political act, a way of showing that Islam is here, Islam is on the march, Islam will triumph. It means paying for tens of thousands of madrasas, that in places such as Pakistan help to brainwash millions of children, who spend their entire youth studying the most fanatical brands of Islam, those of Wahhabism, and memorizing the Qur'an, a skill which simply ruins their brains and makes them unfit for learning any skill or acquiring any real education that might be of use to them in the modern world. But the Saudis have their oil money, and do not have to work. Poor people in Indonesia and Pakistan and Africa, however, need to acquire real skills and education: when they are used as "soldiers of Islam" they are also deprived of any real chance at education. Along with military combat and economic warfare, there is propaganda.
When the Saudis buy large shares in CNN and other media companies, when they openly discuss their plans to buy up media, it is clear that they understand their task as one of both preventing any serious understanding of Islam, and also that they realize that they can, like the Nazis and the Communists, win converts and support through powerful, well-financed propaganda. As against Israel, they have been remarkably successful: they have turned much of Europe into the enemy of this tiny country, which is only trying to defend itself against cruel and cowardly murderers. They have also had success against the United States. It is absolutely incredible how the Europeans, for example, have forgotten what it is America has done for them, both against the Nazis and the Communists, and seem willing to accept the idea that the world of Muslim Arabs are at least as worthy of belief as is the United States. It is an absolutely unbelievable situation. Of course, one must never discout the power as well of envy - of American power, and that age-old disease, anti-Semitism, which affects anywhere from between 10-30% of the population, irrespective of the presence of Jews, and obviously, in a world war where one side, the Muslim side, also has as one of its aims the destruction of Israel, there are antisemites who are willing to overlook the threat to themselves, so powerful is this disease of anti-Semitism, the etiology and epidemiology of which still needs profound, and widespread, study. Finally, there is a new weapon in the Jihad. When, during the Reconquista of Spain, and the Muslims were finally overcome in 1492 after a campaign lasting hundreds of years, Muslim jurists were asked what the Muslims should do? They all replied: Muslims must leave Spain, because they could not stay and live under Infidel rule. So they left, and went to North Africa.
The idea of migration is central to Muslim history. The Muslim calendar itself dates from 622, the year of the Hijra, or migration, from Mecca to Medina, by Muhammad and his followers. Now, in the last 30-40 years, slowly at first, and now much faster, there is a new phenomenon: migration of Muslims to the Bilad al-Kufr, or Lands of the Infidels. And how do Muslims explain this migration, this willingness to live in countries largely run by Infidels, without Muslim rule? It is explained, within Islam, and by Muslims, and this has all been articulated, as justified because it is a way of eventually taking over these lands, of subversion by demography. Already there are many reports of Muslim leaders telling their people in Europe that in a generation or two, because the Europeans have so few children, and the Muslims between 6-10 children per family, they will "inherit Europe." More and more mosques are being built. Within 20 years, in Holland, the majority of school-age children will be Muslim. Without 40 years, Italy - an essential part of the Western world, of Western civilization - will, if present birth-rates and immigration rates continue, have a majority Muslim population. Will the West allow it? Can the West allow Italy to become Muslim? If Italy, or for that matter Israel, are lost simply through demography, then the very idea of Western civilization may be fatally damaged. Let me repeat: this is not a fantasy I have constructed. I have written about 150 pages of a text that includes many quotes from such leaders as Sheik Fadlallah, former head of Hezbollah. Let me offer you one: Fadlallah told his followers that when Hulegu, the Mongol leader, invaded Baghdad in 1258 and conquered the Abbasid Caliphate, it seemed that Islamic civilization was on the verge of being destroyed. But, said Fadlallah, the Muslims managed to convert their Mongol rulers, and turned things around. Instead of losing their territory to the Mongols, they made the Mongol territories Muslim, and enlarged the Dar al-Islam at the expense of the Dar al-Harb. No doubt Hulegu, whose name is instantly understood by all Muslims, will be much on Muslim minds in the coming months, when America conquers Baghdad. People will wonder: we cannot defeat the Infidels, especially America, directly on the battlefield. But with terrorism, economic warfare, propaganda, and above all through demography, will we do to America what we did to the seemingly more powerful and conquering Mongols - that is, eventually seize their territory, win over their people? Unless there is a real understanding of this, it could happen. In any case, life for Infidels everywhere is now much more dangerous and unpleasant, and the more Muslims we allow into our midst, the more that will be so. No country, no civilization has an obligation to commit suicide.
Western civilization has many faults, but life in the Muslim world is, for any liberal, amused, educated Westerner, simply death: no art, except calligraphy and mosques (scultpture, and depiction of the human form, of course, forbidden), no literature, virtually no music (no Fred Astaire, no Louis Armstrong, no Bach, no Mozart, no nothing), no equality of sexes, a strange and rather sick attitude toward sex, and so much else - including I should say, a complete humorlessness. Think of everything you do in a day that makes it interesting and pleasant - what music you listen to, what books you read, what people you like, of both sexes, to have an easy and amiable time with. Think of what, in your daily routine, would be allowed under Muslim rule, and what would not be allowed. As for me, there is hardly a thought, hardly an action, hardly a line I read or a picture I look at or a song I listen to, that would not be forbidden in an Islamic world. Along with the division of the world between Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb, and the hostlility between them that must exist until, through Jihad, Dar al-Islam spreads across the globe, there is one other thing. According to Muslim thought, no permanent peace can ever be permitted between an Infidel power and a Muslim one. The principle that rules in Western legal thought, that "treaties are to be obeyed" or PACTA SUNT SERVANDA, has no place in Muslim legal thought. The rule is that based on the model of an agreement, or treaty, that Muhammad made with the Meccans in 628 A.D. This was the famous Treaty of Al-Hudabiyya, where Muhammad agreed to not invade Mecca if the Meccans would give him rights to visit the city each year. The treaty was to last ten years. The first year, the Meccans allowed Muhammad and his followers to enter Mecca and to worship. But before the second year was out, Muhammad had found a reason to break the treaty - he had gotten more powerful during that time, and now thought he could conquer Mecca. The reason given was that a tribe allied to the Meccans had attacked a tribe allied to the Muslims - but it was a flimsy excuse, and Muslims ever since have praised Muhammad's cunning in first making, and then in breaking, that agreement. It has been taken as the model, and endlessly discussed, for making agreements with Infidel states. For example, all agreements with Israel are not about "peace" but about a "truce" - though this is not really understood, even by Israelis, very few of whom have actually studied Islam.
I know this seems unbelievable, amazing - shouldn't the Israelis, who live in that world, who are surrounded by Muslims, learn about the central tenets of Islam? Indeed, they should, but they have not, or only a handful have. It is simply too painful, it seems to me, to realize that your struggle will go on forever, that it has no end, that there is no "peace" treaty you can rely on. I perhaps should add that all Muslims understand perfectly what the Treaty of Al-Hudabiyya means. Arafat himself has constantly referred to it - always to Muslim audiences. He did it first in 1994, within a year of the Oslo Accords, at a gathering of Muslims in Johannesburg. There is a tape of it, which the Israelis got hold of. He has mentioned that Treaty as his model on at least four other occasions. He never does it to the Westerners, or to the Israelis, but always to his fellow Muslims. This should be a major focus of American, and Isareli attention: if no peace treaty between Infidels and Muslims can possibly mean a real peace, and can only last for 10 years, then Deterrence, and not a worthless agreement, is the only way to keep the peace. These then are the three main tenets (there are others) that I would think you should understand: Dar al-Islam/Dar al-Harb, Jihad and its various forms, and the Treaty of Al-Hudabiyya. Now let me turn to what the Infidels should do. First, they should - or a sufficient number of them should - study this subject. Know what I have just been talking about today. Learn in detail, and talk to your neighbors, so they will understand. The survival of Infidel civilization depends on a sufficient number of people knowing the real core of Islamic teachings and beliefs. Second, the Infidel world has two immediate goals: 1) keep all weapons of mass destruction, or indeed all major weaponry, out of the hands not only of Iraq, but of all Muslim countries. It is too late to deprive Pakistan of nuclear weapons. But that situation can be watched. What about Saudi Arabia? It is unpleasant, but not like Iraq. What about Egypt? What about Jordan? Not a single one of these countries can be allowed to have weapons of mass destruction. For even if one believed - and I do not, not for one minute - that the regime itself could be trusted, there is always the chance that someone, or some group, allied to someone powerful in the country, could then acquire such weaponry. After all, just this past week it was discovered that in tiny Qatar, the small sheikdom that has allowed our soldiers to be based, the Interior Minster, himself a member of the ruling family, has for years been an Al Qaeda supporter, and helped the leading Al Qaeda leader, the man who planned the Sept. 2001 bombings, to escape from FBI agents who were about to arrest him in Qatar. Not a single one of these countries could be trusted to be able to keep such material out of the hands of terrorists, even if it wanted to - and I doubt that it would want to. The second important goal is to stop all Muslim migration to Muslim lands, to the U.S., to Canada, to Western Europe. For obvious reasons, Muslims do not migrate to Eastern Europe and Russia. If possible, not only should migration be stopped, but life can be made more difficult, if not by the government, then by private individuals, so that Muslims will be discouraged from remaining.
What do I mean? I mean that we, as private citizens, do not have to hire Muslims, we do not have to buy their goods, or make their lives, economically, more rewarding. It may seem mean, and many of you may be offended by it, and I am perfecty aware that there are nice Muslims, that there are those who simply ignore the main tenets of Islam. But as a group, the Muslims are a threat to me and those I love. Even the innocent ones, merely by being here, swell Muslim political power. Lookat France, where the government is afraid to offend its 5 million Muslims, and its leaders have admitted as much. We cannot allow Infidels to be prevented from defending themselves out of fear of Muslim political power. For already Muslims in England have demanded a separate Muslim parliament. In France they have demanded the right to ignore the French laws and to wear the hijab to school. In Italy they have demanded that Dante no longer be taught in schools because he condemned Muhammad. In Germany, in Cologne, the Muslims tried to set up a separte Muslim state that they called the "Caliphate." What is amazing is that these, and many other demands I cannot go into here, is that these are made by relatively tiny groups of Muslims. What happens if there are not 5 million Muslims in France, but 10 or 15 or 20 million? What happens if Italy has a majority Muslim population by 2040? What happens to America's ability to have a muscular foreign policy if it has to worry, not about a few million Muslims, but ten million? Finally, along with depriving Muslim states of weaponry, and stopping all immigration of Muslims, and even encouraging returning to the Muslim lands by making life not completely easy, there is another weapon: we have to get off oil. They do not have economies; their huge wealth, amounting to many trillions since 1973, trillions, is a result not of hard work, not of entrepreneurial activity, but solely from the fact that so many Muslim Arab states sit on large amounts of oil and gas. We have to figure out ways to limit the demand. And this is not only a fight for all Infidels, but also for the existence of a world that, environmentally, is at all tolerable.
A Manhattan Project, much greater taxes on gasoline, and so on, are a start. Finally, there are ways to exploit uncertainties and differences within Islam. It is not unified, and we should play, for example, on the contempt and hatred of Turks for Arabs, of Arabs for Persians, of Persians for Arabs, and so on. If we can encourage the Kemalist example of modern Turkey, which is the only kind of Islam the Infidel world can abide-for the great Kemal Ataturk decided that for Turkey to survive, it had to suppress all the political aspects of Islam, the very aspects I have told you about here. The new oil wealth of the Turkic states of Central Asia may make them relatively more powerful within the Muslim world, and they have more in common with their fellow Turkic peoples, following Kemalism, than with the Arabs, whose way of life, is quite foreign for example, to the peoples of Central Asia. They are to be encouraged to follow Kemalism, or even, where possible, to allow real religious diversity. In other words, the Infidel world should not be only defending itself, but must go on the offenseive: the ideological offensive, against Islam as it currently exists. The great Ibn Warraq, in his study Why I Am Not a Muslim, notes that "there are moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate." So we must encourage more "moderate" Muslims, but never forget that "Islam itself is not moderate" and it is only by suppressing or ignoring certain aspects, as Ataturk required in his state, that Islam and we, the Infidels, can coexist.
My Death Goddess: I hear. I obey.
WOW! Between Hugh and Shiva, we got them Muslim facist nailed dead in their tracks. Great work guys!
But I want to focus on a desturbing aspect of Islam and how that may transplant it's self into the Western world as a tool of social engineering.
Mainly the social function of Islam.
In the Arab world it is used to justify dictatorships which also accompanies a stark polarizaton of wealth. A powerful few controls everything in those societies, not exactly news is it.
But look what is happening here in the United States. Dubwa admitted in his Presidential debate with Kerry that revoking his tax break on the upper 2 percent of the population would not fund a healthcare plan by it's self but on generate some $800 billion ( ! ).
Thats a lot of money going to a powerful few by any account. So how does this guy get re-elected? He pulls the religion card. Which also paves the way for the $800 billion transfer of wealth to the upper 2%.
As weath continues to polarize here in America the political establishment by rely more and more on religion to keep the masses content and tolerant of it. At present the dominant religion is Christianity.......but that political dynamic could open the door for Islam as well. And this administration is paving the way for that as well.
The State Department set aside a Muslim prayer room recently during a dinner hosted by Colin Powell. This along with Duba himself recieving Muslim Clerics in the Whitehouse along with a Koran serves to legitimize Islam. His faith basesed social programs is also funnelling millions of taxpayer dollars to Muslim organizations which will ultimately be used to spread Islam here in the United States.
The Jihad will come from above, or within our own political establishment to bring about a social engineering to accomidate a stark polarization of wealth as exist in the Arab World. That is the back door threat we have to be on vegilence against.
Nossy
Shiva, your post is one of the best I've read here. Keep posting.
Shiva - a good review of the facts about Islam, Muslims, and our present world situation. This does give pause -- we gave our work cut for us.
Hey hey
please do not give me credit for the[there was an old joke] article,this was entirely created by
Hugh.
I myself read it a while back,and it really opened my eyes.I posted it because 3812-Michelle
was requesting info about it,and it struck that as a good idea to send.So thanks again Hugh.
In my posting I stated 70-80% of the world's Muslims cannot read
They are taught to recite the koran,not to understand it.
Now I am an x-pat living amongst Muslins,and know first hand the situation.
Okay,I loathe Islam,but I cannot say the same for muslims,because it could
be that the 70-80% that cannot read or write,have not been able to learn that
there is better alternative to islam.A few years ago,over 1,000,000 where killed
here.As we can read daily,there are people being killed.every-where,muslims
and non-muslms alike.
Before saying all muslims are evil,we should try and understand the situation
for many of them.This is not easy when we see all the shit that some off them
are getting up to.My way around this problem is I think like this:
GOOD MUSLIM-BAD PERSON Jihadists/clerics
BAD MUSLIM-GOOD PERSON Not so easy to find,but there are a lot of
them out there,but to scared to show them selves.A lot of muslims go to
USA or Europe to find a better life,When they arrive it is so different,strange
even frightening,so they stick with their kind,and back to they go mosque and
get in the same shit they where trying to escape from.Most of their problems
and fear come from the mosques/clerics.
The GOOD MUSLIMS [jihadist/clerics/fanatics/terrorists] have abused the
good faith of the non-believers,and made it unsafe for a lot decent folks and the
BAD MUSLIMS [people who came to work and live an honest life without fear]
It could be a good idea to start deportlng the GOOD MUSLIMS and demolish
their citadels of hate.Give CAIR and the rest of the hate-mongers a reason to
give us a reason to expell the whole damned pack.
Not all muslims chose to be muslim,so remember we have a lot of unknown
friends on the other side,I am sure that a large percentage of muslims would
be very thank-ful to be liberated from the fear of islam.
dby:
As with everything else, pluralism and tolerance have their limits. To benefit from the same you have to be prepared to extend the same. Hence the long-overdue backlash in the Netherlands.
There is NO progress outside the moral order.
It will be very difficult for a morally weak "West" to defeat Islam.
Steeped in the quick fixes of abortion, euthanasia, fornication, drug abuse, etc. the West belongs to those who control the passions
of the masses.
Posted by: peggy at November 21, 2004 03:41 PM
Peggy maybe we need to do some cleaning get the MOPs and start with Iran!!
So the truth comes out Peggy is an Iranian??
Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
God Bless the USA and her Fighting Forces and ALL who Fight with her give them Strength,Sight,Wisdom, and Courage to Destory ALL Islamic Terrorist and ALL who Support them Open the Worlds Eyes to their Threat Amen
Attention Mr. Fitzgerald,
As for the deceptions perpetrated by Muslims against non-Muslims you missed perhaps the most egregious example of all: the passengers of the hijacked jetliners being suicidally steered into the World trade Towers had been told BY THE HIJACKERS: "No one is going to be hurt."
OUR INSIGHT INTO THE REAL NATURE ISLAM: This is an ancient human sacrifice cult in the same mold as the cults of the Mayans and Aztecs--but made far more dangerous however by being hidden under an overlay false Judeo-Christian theology.