Teenage jihadis. From the LA Times, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:
PARIS -- The case file of the French homeboys who joined the Iraqi jihad contains a startling photo.It's the mug shot of Salah, the alleged point man in Damascus, Syria, who authorities say arranged for guns and safe passage into Iraq for extremists from Paris. Salah has a serious expression beneath a short Afro-style haircut. He looks as if he's posing, reluctantly, for a middle school yearbook.
When Salah left for Damascus with the jihadis last summer, he was 13 years old...."Iraq is the motor," said a senior French anti-terrorism official, who asked to remain anonymous for security reasons. "It's making them all go crazy, want to be shaheed [martyrs]. The danger of suicide attacks in Europe and the United States increases as you have younger guys who are fervent and easily manipulated."
Along with longtime resentment and alienation experienced by some in immigrant communities, technology such as computers and Arabic-language satellite TV plays a major role in molding militants earlier, European officials say. Internet sites and chat rooms have become a virtual sanctuary, widening access to propaganda and training materials for an emerging "second generation" of extremists.
Right. And in those sites they don't just talk about Iraq. They talk about Islamic theology. It is no longer enough for groups like the CIP to bloviate about a multiplicity of interpretations of the Qur'an -- if such groups really want to gain any influence among young Muslims like Salah, they have to confront and refute the jihadist interpretation. This they have not even attempted to do.
Later in the article we read that:
Syria is popular with young European Muslims hoping to study religion or Arabic, because it is cheaper to live there than in Egypt or Saudi Arabia. Syria is also a hub of smugglers and operatives of the Iraq insurgency: a gateway to jihad. Koranic schools in Damascus have become steppingstones and cover stories for Iraq-bound militants.
Koranic schools. But growing ever smaller is the number of those who are willing to discuss the role of Islam in all this.
What a load of horse puckey:
Rather than give the long list of other jihads in recent decades, I'll just wonder how much longer the willful blindness can continue?
We are not in control of jihadis. The jihadis are ALWAYS looking for a place to fight. If we're not involved overseas they'll bring it to New York or Los Angeles.
HELLO?! Terror officials?! This is just ANOTHER repeat of the philosophy of terror first espoused in Koran 3.151. Why don't you 'experts' search "terror" in any online Koran?
Muslims, rightly, see the U.S. and Israel as the only major powers in the fight to defend the West. That's why Sweden doesn't top the list of terror targets, not some intrinsic good they possess which we don't.
*pulling hair out*
Gosh,
Maybe the French foreign legion will now dress according to Islamic law, so as not to offend the Muslims around the world, despite the offensive nature of the beast. French foreign policy is like Rodney King, while I want peace I wreak havoc, so can't we all just get along? Shall we all partake and hand Islam the sword (the olive branch), to cut off our heads? Let's be diplomatic as the pirates of consciousness plunder the minds of the dumb and blind against the remaining good in this world. "Vive La France" or is it Jack and Jill went up the hill?
If Jihadi's bring Allahs cause to the streets of L.A. or any big U.S. city, there will be severe consequences for American muslims. Not only from government, but from American street gangs. As soon as the crips, bloods, mexican mafia, skinheads, Nazi's and other misfits realize who the enemy is, they will cease fighting each other and go for muslims. Many of these people are already armed, dangerous, and not too bright. They dont play by rules either.
For the most part, the membership of these groups consists of dullards, so it might take a while for reality to sink in, once it does, local muslims will be harrassed...a lot...
None of this is an absolute...just a prediction...
It is pretty clear that Iraq and other conflicts where Muslims are being attacked ARE the driving force behind much of the terrorist activity going on today. One has to be severely uninformed to imagine that a Muslim wish to kill or subjugate non-Muslims is the sole purpose of all of the terrorist attacks being perpetrated.
This, I feel, is one of the major problems of Jihad Watch. The demonisation of Islam (through one-sided quotings from Islamic texts without regard for context, nuance, or minority opinions), and not an altruistic ambition seems to be the primary focus of the site despite the claims ("...hope to alert people...to the true nature of the present global conflict."). Hence, there is no solution being offered at all except that 1.3 billion Muslims are devils in disguise and should instead become Godless heathens or follow Judaism and Christianity to be accepted.
"They will never accept you until you follow that which they follow" - paraphase from the Quran
For the real scholars, please read the following. Suicide terrorism is not so Islamic after all:
http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/ahm/moonlight.htm
Regrets, Shukri, but how does this explain islamic conquest of the Middle East, or Africa, or the war against other religions perpetrated there or in the east in India? Does the war in Iraq justify the attack of 9/11? Why do all such wars take on a religious flavour, jihad (for it can really hardly be said that the US 'attacked muslims' - there are numerous muslims even in their own country they might have 'attacked' without even taking a plane flight), rather than a national or even nationalistic one? And what excuse is given for the oppression of other religions in muslim-majority countries? How, exactly, have they 'attacked' their masters?
Geoff
shukri writes, "Hence, there is no solution being offered at all except that 1.3 billion Muslims are devils in disguise and should instead become Godless heathens or follow Judaism and Christianity to be accepted."
It is not up to the kafir to find a solution for the violence and hate engendered by the religion of mohammed. This is the problem of the muslim. Our problem is how to protect the freedoms we hold sacred from the onslaught of a 7th century tribal theocracy that believes that the entire world should submit to its rules and demands.
Poetess: well and concisely said.
Among many examples, Shukri completely overlooks the fact that what is going on in Iraq now is violence primarily perpetrated by Sunni Muslim jihaddis from all over the place, supported in all likelihood by Saudi Arabia against the Shia majority. He also ignores the sickening acts of Moqtada Al-Sadr's supporters who tortured and murdered fellow Shias who don't subscribe to Al-Sadr's desire to instite an Iranian mullahocracy in Iraq.
Excellent post and points poetess.
And waterdragon I do agree with you.
However I disagree with Beagle. Iraq indeed is a magnet for wannabe shaheeds and jihadis.
The invasion and continuous occupation of Iraq is akin to throwing fecal matter on a sidewalk in summer, it attracts jihadis and would be shaheeds like fecal matter attracts flies.
But Beagle is correct to an extent, all these Muslims want is an excuse, and Iraq has provided that excuse.
And the excuse is farcial, because Saddam was an apostate, a heretic and a declared enemy of Osama so said Osama and "respected" Muhammadan scholars, jurists and imams.
The invasion of Iraq was counterproductive and unjustified. Saddam was not in league with Osama or other Islamic terrorists, he had no WMD's, and after his whooping in GWI and the sanctions and inspections he was no threat to anyone, except symbolically.
Actually he was a buffer between the Mullahcracy of Iran (who created and sustains Hizbollah) and the Wahhabi's of Saudi Arabia (who are not only friends and business partners with Bush and Cheney, but are the chief financiers of Islamic terrorism and proslyteziation)
So we invaded Iraq, creating a militant Islamic Republic, creating a recruiting and training ground for Jihadis. Have provided fuel throughout the world for Muslims to hate us even more than they do already, and simultaneously wasted precious American blood and our national treasure (your future and your childrens posterity).
I'm not going to waste any crocodile tears on the Iraqi's though, I know that they would waste none on us, and most certainly they too were dancing in the streets on 9-11. The Iraqi's deserved Saddam, pure and simple, and they have by their actions proved that they deserved him. Thus falls another Bush excuse for invasion (he killed his own people), so what. There are more valid grounds for invading Sudan than Iraq but I hear no demands to invade Sudan.
"...there is no solution being offered at all except that 1.3 billion Muslims are devils in disguise and should instead become Godless heathens or follow Judaism and Christianity to be accepted."
The idea that there is a "problem" and that there must therefore be a "solution" is, dare one say it, a very naive notion, betraying a worldview that is often ascribed to Americans -- you know, we'll just pitch right in and fix things up.
There is a "problem" but as there is no solution, so it might better be desribed simply as a situation. Islam owes its origins to the need by pagan Arabs -- perhaps prompted by others, either a Jewish or a Christian sect attempting to convert them with things going awry -- to have, while conquering other, far more advanced, wealthy, settled populations of Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians (in the initial centuries of conquest), to possess their "own religion" which might emphasize the superiority of the Arabs (hence the need to read the Qur'an only in Arabic, handed to the "best of people" and in their language, and the rest of the Arab supremacist ideology contained within a supposedly universalist religion).
The discussion at this forumn is about the varieties of instruments of Jihad, and the various expressions of that attitude of abasement, even prior to outright conquest, by various non-Muslim individuals and groups (in dar al-Islam and in what are still the Lands of the Infidels).
The emphasis in the Western press and Western governments on terrorism is foolish, for terrorism is only one tactic, one instrument of the Jihad to spread Islam, or rather to create the conditions in which Islam may spread unopposed. Terrorism is not even the most effective, just as, at present, military force generally is not the best way to spread Islam across the globe. Indeed, while the doctrine of Jihad, the duty of Jihad, the manichean division between Believer and Infidel that runs through Qur'an and Sunnah and no Believer can possibly avoid being aware of, whether he visits the mosque or not, has always been with us, the wherewithal to conduct this Jihad with greater force depended on several things -- but most of all, on the money that flowed from an accident of geology. This money has been used most effectively, as the "wealth" weapon, to pay for all sorts of things: bribing diplomats (votes in the U.N.) and government officials (recycling petrollars for their own benefit, and that of their friends), and businessmen (ditto), and journalists on the take. It has been used to pay for mosques and madrasas all over the world, both within the Islamic lands and in the Western world, thus helping to entrench Islam in countries whose political, economic, and social arrangements, and whose peoples, adherents of Islam cannot -- to the extent that they remain Believers (if they are silent dissenters from Islam, or open defectors--i.e., apostates -- it is another thing), possibly wish well.
The money weapon coincided with an event unheard-of in history: admission by one group of countries of large numbers of people who possessed a belief-system, an ideology, that inculcated hostlity, often murderous hostility, to the indigenous inhabitants of the lands they were permitted to come and settle among. This happened for various reasons, none of them attractive. The German and French need for manodopera, workers, led in the first case to the admission of Turkish "guest-workers" whom, it was dreamily believed, would carry with them the supposed "secularism" of Kemalist Turkey, and in any case they would be returning home. Neither assumption proved correct; the guest-workers came, but came to stay. And while a very few in the second and third generations have jettisoned Islam altogether, most have become more fervent in their faith.
In France the miscalculation was based on arrogant negligence of Islam, the psychology of Muslims, and the tenets of Islam. The works of French experts on the theory and practice of Islam -- Huart, Fagnan, Vajda, Dufourcq, Levi-Provencal, and many others -- simply were ignored, while johnny-jump-ups such as Olivier Roy and Gilles Kepel, who continue to be wrong about almost everything, were listened to. A preening poseur such as Dominique de Villepin, a crook such as Chirac, have not made matters better. There was, of course, the fateful decision by Giscard d'Estaing to "reunite families" in order to diminish criminal or sociopathic behavior by maghrebins. That led to many wives, and even more children -- and to birth rates four or five times higher than that of the non-Muslims. The results are there for all to see.
Along with discussions of examples of Jihad, local and universal, and the various instruments of Jihad (including demography and Da'wa), there are discussions of the historic treatment of non-Muslims under Muslim rule, and the evidence that such treatment has proved remarkably similar, in time and space (1350 years, from Spain to the East Indies), no matter whether those non-Muslims were Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists, or others.
Then, if this is not a "problem" admitting of a "solution," at least contributors here can suggest ways to most effectively limit the powere of the aggressive JIhad. One way is to understand the matter by insisting that before anyone comment or pontificate on Islam, that Qur'an, Hadith and Sira actually be read and re-read. Another is to understand the various strategies of deception or obfuscation made by apologists -- both Muslim and non-Muslim -- for Islam, beginning with a taxonomy of the kinds of Taqiyya and Tu-Quoque arguments one most frequently encounters, the appeal to the usual phony elements of "commmon ground" -- including the "three abrahamic faiths," the "family values" of prayer and Ramadan, and so on and so tediously forth.
It is urged here that some simple and obvious steps be taken. Muslim peoples and polities, given that reigning ideology that affects textbooks and khutbas, press and radio and television stories and coverage, conversations and worldview -- the pervasive, all-suffusing nature of Islam which is, indeed, completely different from that of other belief-systems that are called "world relgions" and is rightly called "a way of life," need to be understood. Preventing those states and groups from acquiring major weaponry, and ending all Muslim migration to the Western, Infidel world, are the two most important steps.
The belief that "democracy" will somehow diminish the force or power of Islam, in the Middle East or elsewhere, is false, and is now a horrific misallocation of American, and other Infidel, resourdes -- of men, materiel, money, morale, and attention. The men and materiel need no longer be expended to keep Iraq together; if it is to hold together, it is Iraqis who should be doing it, and spending their own money (including borrowing against future oil revenues). As to money, the $100 billion a year being spent on Iraq at present could be put to far better use, in the war of self-defense against the Jihad (or many little Jihads, all adding up to local expressions of a single impulse), in energy projects designed to diminish Arab and Muslim revenues (instead of bothering about the idiotic goal of "energy independence").
Finally, if one believes that Islam is essentially immutable, given its canonical texts, then it is not Infidels, but rather Muslims who need to explain just what it is they intend to do, if anything, about the tenets of Islam. Despite all those Bright Young Muslim Things promising "reform" and "change" and never quite telling us just which passages in the Qur'an, which stories among those deemed authentic by the most authoritative muhaddithin, which details in the life of Muhammad, uswa hasana, are to be no longer believed and thrown out of the Sira as untrue or merely metaphoric --need to do a bit more. Of course, they will still present themselves as Brave Fighters (the only Brave Fighters who have been born into Islam bear such names as Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina, Irfan Khawaja, Azam Kamguian, Ayaan Hirsi Ali), deserving of government money, large honoraria from church and synagogue members eager to listen to that new specialty, the sympathetic Msulim who titillates and scares at the same time by delivering an "I-wants-to-make-your-flesh-creep" speech about the dangers of "some Muslims" and then happily pockets the envelope with the check.
Islam and not-Islam are immiscible. Try as one might, if one is Tariq Ramadan, to keep up the mountebank's patter, the jig is up. The nonsense cannot continue for much longer; too many people are, on their own, studying Islam -- and refusing to accept what a small army of apologists, Muslim and non-Muslim, have attempted, not without success until now, to convince them that, despite all the mounting evidence in word, and in deed, they have nothing to fear from Islam. But they do.
And the best strategy of all is to have as little to do with the Muslim world as possible, so that, on their own, a sufficient number of Muslims may become aware that the political, economic, social, and intellectual ills of the Muslim peoples and polities is a direct result of Islam itself. No foreign aid, no attempts to play to Muslim demands that the West remold itself for Muslim sojourners, no rewriting of history to accomodate Muslim "self-esteem" by exaggerating intellectual or other achievements. And work steadily, even though the largest transfer of wealth in human history has already occurred (and much of it wasted) from the oil consumers to Arab and Muslim oil producers, to diminish that revenue, the value of those reserves that, if their true cost to Infidels were to be properly internalized, would shoot into the stratosphere.
Actually the Bush Administration, Jay Garner presiding approved an Iranian Mullahcracy for Iraq
To wit:
. Iraqi Interim Constitution
Article A makes clear that Shari'a is the law of the land
Article B makes clear that Iraqi Arabs are part of the pan Arab or Arab Nationalist movement (Nasser or the Ba'aths)
Moqtadr al Sadr is a bit player without any religious credentials, as far as the Iranian mullhacracy is concerned, the real power in Iraq is SCIRI (Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq) which is allied to and supported by the Iranian Revolutionary Council, headed by Ayatollahs al Hakim and al Sistani.
Al Sadr is a two bit thug who has used his family (of Ayatollahs) to climb to power. I doubt that Iran seriously backs him though, they know that the Shi'a faithful will readily follow The Ayatollahs Sistani and Hakim.
But I'm interested, as I save such information.
Do you have any sources that I can file and save, that substantiate al Sadr torturing and murdering other Shi'as. I find that extremely interesting as I have seen nothing about that, though I scour the news (including Arab and Iranian news).
That's blockbuster information, but I need to back it up.
Thank you
duh_swami
check out StormFront and you will see there are elements there are already zooming in on the Islamic problem
In fact they are awake to whats going on and the news section is very in depth.
The Pope Has Passed Away
"check out StormFront"--from a posting above.
"StormFront"--the name is a dead giveaway -- is a David-Duke, quasi-Nazi site. Everything about such a site -- the Total Explanation of the Universe, the Refusal to Think, the Pre-Cooked- Scapegoat-on-a-Platter, etc.--is precisely what is most characterize of, and most objectionable in, the Islamic websites. Peas in a pod. Hardly friends, in any weather.
No surprise there,I came across a piece at www.islamway.com that glorified Muhammed as a warrior and mentions that he used "Children"
armed just like the adults,the site even confirms
he did acts of pedophilia with a 6 year old child.
Islam is slowly imploding and calapsing under it's own weight on violence and murder.
Hopefull it will soon die the fate of the Berlin Wall.
I found the article at Islamway.com and it says Muhammed used Children in war.
**************************************************
Abu Hurairah reported God's Messenger saying, "By Him in Whose Hand my soul is, were it not that men among the believers are not satisfied with remaining behind me when I cannot accommodate them, I would stay behind when an expedition goes out in God's Way. By Him in Whose Hand my soul is, I wish I could be killed and brought to life, then be killed again." (Bukhari and Muslim). And Sahl ibn Said reported God's Messenger as saying, "Being stationed on the frontiers in God's Way for a day is better than the world and what is in it." (Bukhari and Muslim). Ka'b ibn Malik said that when God's Messenger intended to go on an expedition he always pretended to be going somewhere else until the time came for that expedition, meaning the one to Tabuk. God's Messenger undertook it in extreme heat, facing a long journey and a vast enemy. He made clear to the Muslims what they were about to do in order that they might get ready the equipment for their expedition, telling them where he was going. (Bukhari). He fought scores of battles with great courage and determination without ever suffering total defeat. In the battle of Badr, he faced 1,000 fighting men, fully equipped with the armour of the time, with only 313 ill-equipped men, including some CHILDREN, but he never showed any signs of fear or cowardice. He fought against heavy odds with extreme courage and won the battle. In the heat of the battle, the Muslims looked to him for support and protection. In the battle of Uhud, victory was converted into partial defeat by the mistake of a few archers. The Muslims were running around in complete chaos after hearing the false news of the death of the Holy Prophet but he was as calm as ever. He continued fighting in the company of some of his faithful companions, even after the loss of his teeth, until other Muslims came to know of his whereabouts and gathered round him. Then they fought a very fierce battle under his courageous guidance and the enemy withdrew with the final result of the battle still undecided.
Using kids as suicide-bombers for Allah is NOT Un-Islamic as many ignorant Muslims claim,Muhammed himself used kids and Muslims can read it for themselves if they truely recognize
the Quran as perfect and from Allah.
Off Subject about CAIR:
CAIR has an action alert on a retailer.
Take a look at the web site, you'll love it!
http://0cents.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=0CP&Product_Code=7081
Wonder how long before the ad comes down?
Hugh,
This should be a main post, not in a comment. Excellent work.
I am thinking one of the best things America could do is to neutron bomb the areas around the oil wells in Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran, setting up security fences there. Then encourage American immigration there. That would be the quickest way to end the money weapon.
Or just deport and then neutron nuke all of the followers of Islam. If they want to force us to convert, pay jizya or die, I certainly don't have any qualms about killing the lot of them. It would certainly solve the terrorist problem forever. And in a few years the world would recover, we could disband the TSA, the anti-terrorism apparatus and get back to living our lives. With oil at $10 per barrel, hopefully.
Hugh posted And the best strategy of all is to have as little to do with the Muslim world as possible, so that, on their own, a sufficient number of Muslims may become aware that the political, economic, social, and intellectual ills of the Muslim peoples and polities is a direct result of Islam itself. No foreign aid, no attempts to play to Muslim demands that the West remold itself for Muslim sojourners, no rewriting of history to accomodate Muslim "self-esteem" by exaggerating intellectual or other achievements
Agreed totally. The Jihad exists because we allowed muslims into the West. Our freedoms are threatened by jihadis as well as our own governments, as they respond in a PC fashion, because we have muslims enmasse in the West.
It is hardly worth mentioning that as the population of muslims in the West grows, so will our freedoms diminish in accordance.
In the beginning of this article, Salah, age 13, is profiled. He left France to go to Syria to become a "point man" for smuggling guns and Jihadists to Iraq? Is that a normal summer school for young Muslim boys? I have noticed in film coverage of bombing, riots, etc in the Palestinian terroritories and in Iraq that very young children, especially boys, seem to roam the streets at dangerous times. There seems to be no concern about what violence they are seeing or that their safety is in jepordary. It appears that children in the Islamic world are no more valued than women in the Islamic world. Mommy, can I go back to Syria next summer for more "classes?"
Maryrose-
"Mommy" has no voice in Islam.
And Daddy is more than glad to fob off one of his docile offspring to the glories of martyrdom. The family probably even gets an under-the-table payment for the 'sacrifice' (from 'Hisbollocks' or 'Ham-ass') to make up for their now-room-temperature kid.
And don't forget that the ever-fertile Allah can always give Daddy more sons to replace Corpse, Jr.
Especially since he can get another wife, too, if the old one's worn out from being [on] the cannon fodder assembly line.
Throw your child into the devouring mouth of the Blood Idol.
A charming bunch.
There was never a war against any religion to my knowledge. Forced conversion is prohibited in Islam. So as can be seen today with Islam the fastest growing religion in the West, undoubtedly what attracts people to Islam today attracted previous peoples to voluntarily convert.
How are 9/11 and Iraq connected? Even Defense Secretary Rumsfeld has admitted that there is no connection between the two.
If a Muslim is attacked, he is obliged by Sacred Law to defend himself in a manner that would eliminate or cripple the threat. That is perhaps the "religious flavor" that you are referring to. Everything that a human being does, there is divine guidance in Islam on how he should do it.
However, if a person ignores Sacred Law and kills civilians, that is not the fault of the law or the religion but rather, that individuals own fault and responsibility.
I'm not sure about what you mean by the second question but regarding the first:
There is no "Islamic" government or nation on the face of the earth as of right now. The oppression of non-Muslims in Muslim countries is not just of non-Muslims but of Muslims as well. Witness the mass jailings of practicing Muslims from Egypt to Jordan to Uzbekistan and their subsequent torture and imprisonment. All of these nations are sponsored, supported and propped up by Western nations. The ones not propped by the West (ex: Syria) are extremely tolerant of other faiths
========================
The violence and hate is engendered by non-Muslim invasion and occupation of Muslim lands. Where there is no invasion or occupation, there is no terrorism.
Sorry for stepping in with this question that is not directly related to the post.
«As you know, polytheism is the only unforgivable sin in Islam. You can kill, lie, steal, cheat, covet, etc. with no fear of damnation, but polytheism is the ultimate transgression.«
CGW said this about another post (Fourteen... about Islam).
What is the part of Qu'ran that states this?
Thank you in advance for any further answer.
"Forced conversion is prohibited in Islam. So as can be seen today with Islam the fastest growing religion in the West, undoubtedly what attracts people to Islam today attracted previous peoples to voluntarily convert."--from a posting above
The three options available to non-Muslims in lands conquered by Muslims were three: death, conversion, or submission, as non-Muslims, to a series of onerous financial, political, and social disabilities, including the payment of the jizyah in a manner deliberately intended to "humiliate" the payer -- which together add up to the condition we now know as that of being a "dhimmi." If Zoroastrians were ultimately granted the status of honorary ahl al-kitab and not all forcibly converted or killed, that was because the jizyah they offered was important to the Muslim state. The same is true for extending that status to Hindus (after 60-70 million had been killed).
Obviously, forcing people into a condition of permanent second or third-class status, in whcih they pay heavy taxes, cannot testiy in court against Muslims, non-Muslim males cannot mary Muslim females bu the reverse is not true, must read only donkeys (and sidesaddle), not horses, and dismount whenever Muslims are near, must not build new, or repair old, houses of worship, must have identifying marks indicating they are non-Muslims on their houses and clothing, and so on -- if this does not lead to an intolerably difficult situation in which, over time, many obviously converted -- and "forcibly" because it was in response not to the self-evident wonderfulness of Islam but to threats, persecution, and malign treatment from first to last.
There is no proof -- none -- that "Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world today." There is proof that in black Africa many are leaving Islam for Christianity, that the most intelligent people born into Islam are, when in the West, jettisoning the faith, sometimes for open apostasy (Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina, and tens of thousands of others) and sometimes for silent apostasy. Meanwhile, it is the economically and psychically marginal, from Leopold Weiss in the old days to Roger Garaudy or John Walker Lindh or Richard Reid or David Hicks or Jose Padilla --practically all of them semi-demented or at war with society and selecting an entirely unimportant Islam as the vehicle to express that alienation and that hostility, who in fact convert to Islam.
Not a fair trade, but from the Infidel point of view, quite satisfactory.
«The violence and hate is engendered by non-Muslim invasion and occupation of Muslim lands. Where there is no invasion or occupation, there is no terrorism.»
What about what happened and still happen in India and in Kashmir? Who invaded India?
And in Iberia? And in the Balkan's area?
"If a Muslim is attacked, he is obliged by Sacred Law to defend himself in a manner that would eliminate or cripple the threat."
You see, that's just it. It all depends on the what you understand by the term "attack". It would appear that mentioning womens rights in the context of Islam (Van Gogh), or distributing info and/or discussing other faiths (recent cases in Dubai), or questioning the wisdom of huge-scale Islamic in-migration (Gert Wilders) all constitues an "attack" on Islam. This, of course, makes many people legitimate targets in the eyes of Muslims. According to Islam, there is essentially a single choice for non-Muslims, dhimmitude (crippling to use your terms) or death (elimination). This was the case in anchient tims, remains the case in Islamic states today (eg Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran), and seems to be becoming the case in Islamising states (Holland, Sweden, UK).
The trouble for you guys is, since 9/11 us non-Muslims are more aware of situation. We're seeing the way things are panning out, and we rather dont fancy being eliminated or crippled. Sorry old boy but slavery (dhimmitude) or death isnt really for us, so were starting to change the system. Were begining to vote against the Islamisation of our countries, and were not worried if our police forces search more Muslims than non-Muslims at airports etc. Efficiency and saftey are the order of the day. Islam has had years to get it's house in order, it has totally failed to act and so, now it is faced with the choice... modernise or face decline.
"The violence and hate is engendered by non-Muslim invasion and occupation of Muslim lands. Where there is no invasion or occupation, there is no terrorism."
Well some examples that contradict the "its all the non-Muslim's fault"
Armenian Genocide (carried out by Muslim extremists on a non Muslim minority, c. 80 years ago)
East Timor (Al-Qaeda's violent objection to the Christian East Timorese voting to leave Indonesia, an overwhelmingly Muslim country)
"The violence and hate is engendered by non-Muslim invasion and occupation of Muslim lands. Where there is no invasion or occupation, there is no terrorism." ~ Shukri
I wasn’t aware that America was occupying Moslem lands on September 11, 2001.
Everything that a human being does, there is divine guidance in Islam on how he should do it.~ Shukri
That’s true, I have read about Moslems men having to shave their hind parts, apparently Allah has a issue with allowing hairy hind parts into paradise.
My only question is, if Allah doesn’t like hairy hind parts, why did he make them hairy to begin with?
«As you know, polytheism is the only unforgivable sin in Islam. You can kill, lie, steal, cheat, covet, etc. with no fear of damnation, but polytheism is the ultimate transgression.«
CGW said this about another post (Fourteen... about Islam).
What is the part of Qu'ran that states this?
Can someone answer?
Shurkri,
your misbegotten messenger was involved in 28 wars against his own arab pagan and Jewish tribes and others; he fought, he killed in the name of himself being something special. He and his paid brigandes fought his own tribe, who knew he was a bs artist.
These are all religious wars. Many others followed, as the political religion islam slaughtered its way to success.
Try 70 million Hindus slaughtered because they wouldn't accept allah.
So no more bs from you, please, on that subject.
You then go to the most dangerous, and utterly stupid piece of nonsense - all those islamic govts are bad because they are not truly islamic. That line of thinking led to the Taliban in Afghanistan, who came closest to your messengers vision of life on earth, IT WAS A TRUE HELL.
Finally, the invasion of lands started with your messenger 650 years after Christ. The moslem invasions have continued since then, and went as far as southern France and Vienna, the latter in the time of Beethoven. Your islamic friends were only forced out of Greece 150 years ago, and out of Israel 90 years ago.
Really sorry if it upsets you when the indigenous people take back control of what is theirs, but blame yourself, blame islame; islam was the invader, always.
My hope is that one day the arab people, who were forced by your messenger to accept his bs, will revolt, find their freedom and discover their true history, their honourable history, before islam.
I see there is still some confusion over the Iraq invasion so I'll make two points that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack that Muslims love to use as a focal point for bashing the USA.
Point #1
Arabs and Muslims allowed Saddam to slaughter
their Brothers and Sisters with no fear of an invasion by Muslims emulating Muhammeds courage to free those who suffer from those who inflict.
I put about 90 percent of the blame on these two groups that supported Saddam by their silence that
gave conscent for him to continue.
Point #2
The endless U.N. resolutions that seemed more like a Monty Python skit about the Cop that says "Stop" or I'll say "Stop" one more time,the U.N.'s failure to confirm there were NO WMD's
left the problem up to some other body that didn't want to take the risk with peoples lives
as the U.N. was so willing to do since they were in New York and not based in the Middle east.
I put the balance of 10 percent of the blame on the U.N. and maybe the new U.N. head-quarters
could be built on the Israeli-Palestinian border
to assure they actually do something about world peace since it will no be in their best interests.
Yes the 9/11 attack had nothing to do with Iraq,it was deranged Muslims believing that their God(Allah) gave them a special dispensation to murder people at will,the same God that told Muhammed to have sex with a child and also use children for fighting in wars.
The Quran was used to learn about Muhammed and I didn't take it out of context because it was from an Islamic website.
I see there is still some confusion over the Iraq invasion so I'll make two points that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack that Muslims love to use as a focal point for bashing the USA.
Point #1
Arabs and Muslims allowed Saddam to slaughter
their Brothers and Sisters with no fear of an invasion by Muslims emulating Muhammeds courage to free those who suffer from those who inflict.
I put about 90 percent of the blame on these two groups that supported Saddam by their silence that
gave conscent for him to continue.
Point #2
The endless U.N. resolutions that seemed more like a Monty Python skit about the Cop that says "Stop" or I'll say "Stop" one more time,the U.N.'s failure to confirm there were NO WMD's
left the problem up to some other body that didn't want to take the risk with peoples lives
as the U.N. was so willing to do since they were in New York and not based in the Middle east.
I put the balance of 10 percent of the blame on the U.N. and maybe the new U.N. head-quarters
could be built on the Israeli-Palestinian border
to assure they actually do something about world peace since it will no be in their best interests.
Yes the 9/11 attack had nothing to do with Iraq,it was deranged Muslims believing that their God(Allah) gave them a special dispensation to murder people at will,the same God that told Muhammed to have sex with a child and also use children for fighting in wars.
The Quran was used to learn about Muhammed and I didn't take it out of context because it was from an Islamic website.
Oh, Shukri, for shame.
There was no war against any religion "to your knowledge". This implies quite strongly that you need to expand that knowledge. Ignorance cannot excuse you on this issue. I recommend Sword of the Prophet for starters, and of course Robert Spencer's new book. There are literally a plethora of books discussing the conquest of Christian and Jewish lands by islamic armies, not to mention islamic traditions also. And forced conversion is not at all prohibited in islam - Wahabbis in particular consider that ayah 2:256 is abrogated by Sura 9. Moreover, Wahabbi or no, Sura 9 specifies that war against unbelievers must continue until all are dead, Muslim, or pay a punitive, humiliating tax. What exactly would there be in islam to attract people? The ability to use physical force on your wife?
(However, I'm glad you can agree that there was no justification for 9/11 from the first Gulf War - or presumably the so-called 'defiling' of Saudi Arabia that precipitated some of Osama Bin Laden's hate for the US. It seems we may have some common ground. =) Let us hope.)
I'm not sure what you meant by not being able to understand my question "And what excuse is given for the oppression of other religions in muslim-majority countries?" Did you not follow the way it was phrased? What I'm asking about is what followers of minority religions in muslim majority countries have 'done' that they deserve to be oppressed by the muslim majorities there. Does that help you at all? If you like, we could merely discuss oppression ongoing in the 20th century rather than historically; although either is fine, debate-wise. If you're arguing that all islamic violence comes from 'attack', then this should be fairly straightforward.
I'm afraid I don't see your point about tolerance being afforded minority religions and women only in states not propped up by the US. Iran, for example, is hideously restrictive of religious rights. Saudi Arabia receives no US support that I know of - and yet is about as bad as Iran or worse. And moreover, how would you connect US support with islamic hate crimes there? This doesn't make any logical sense. So: a majority Christian state provides economic support for muslim states, the response of the population of those states being more hatred for religious minorities? Can you explain by what logical mechanism this would occur? It's clear that there is abundant hatred in those nations for religious minorities - including Syria, which recently aired "The Blood Libel" against Jews on cable TV - but how would US generosity relate to that? How, moreover, could these countries not be called islamic? Could you define how a country with a majority muslim population and sharia law is not islamic? When islamicists claim on-line that North American natives were really islamic and that muslims founded their civilizations and cultures, so that all of North America is therefore 'islamic', are these people being facetious?
I have to question your meaning further on other subjects also: in what way do you mean that "Where there is no invasion or occupation, there is no terrorism." Surely you can see that this simply isn't true? The entire medieval period in the Middle East is a long history of muslim aggression. Perhaps you could specify further, or provide examples?
I'm afraid too that tranmere_rover and the others are right on the whole "attack" thing. "Attack" seems to be very loosely defined in islam. A man raking a pile of leaves against a mosque is an "attack". Insulting someone's islamic beard is an "attack". Letting a woman lead a prayer meeting is an "attack". I'd be much more accepting of the honesty of defense against "attacks", if I didn't understand the basic nature of the human character.
Tautalos,
What you're asking about is the shahada. It's kind of in there but kind of not. The shahada ('testimony') goes: There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his Messenger. Various phrasings exist of this, but all implicitly mean via the first phrase that there is only one God. Muslims interpret this for some reason to mean that Jesus could not be the son of God, nor a component part of God, and that the Trinity is therefore polytheism, which is in islam 'shirk'. The islamic rationale for how the Trinity is polytheistic is abundantly muddied to the point where it fails to be rational - the old "1+1+1=1" argument that you find islamicists screeching about until froth comes out of their mouths, as if a set of 'Natural' numbers [i.e. 1,2,3...] could somehow have sufficient mathematical meaning to describe a set of linked, infinite beings. But I digress. But, that's islam for you. As for where you find the shahada, it's not there in that exact form. Usually it's considered to be drawn from Q 4:36, 3:18, 6:162. Never really written exactly like that, though.
Hope that helps. Apologies for all my questions.
Geoff
Tautalos,
Forgot to mention: indeed 'polytheism' is the penultimate sin in islam (for some reason or other). Some authorities actually feel that having committed 'shirk' (the act of associating partners with Allah - i.e. polytheism, which is also considered to be Christianity) is actually unforgivable, even for the Merciful Allah (I think some ayah actually describe him as Oft-Merciful, believe it or not). This latter is generally reflected in islamic/shariac laws in islamic nations, and it explains why the penalties for apostacy there are so severe. Freedom of religion is definitely NOT on the halaal menu in islam.
Cheers,
Geoff
Shukri says:
"The violence and hate is engendered by non-Muslim invasion and occupation of Muslim lands. Where there is no invasion or occupation, there is no terrorism."
Can you explain Sudan for me? Where is the invasion, and occupation in Sudan? Two million people were killed in the past twenty years by Muslims in Sudan (UN figures). Can you please please tell me what kind of violence and hate provokes the Muslims in Darfur right now? What kind of attack are those muslims trying to criple in Darfur which so far resulted in 300,000 deaths? (Lates UN figures)
Please humor us Shukri.
A Christian endorses a challenge to Muslim supremacism. Frankly, I could puke everytime I hear by a Bush Whitehouse' "christian" refer to Muhammed (F-him) as a "prophet"
http://americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4380
Major recipient of US aid permits a signatory to bin Laden's fatwah "against Jews and Crusaders" to speak at jihad conference in the bengali terrorist entity.
http://www.webindia123.com/news/showdetails.asp?id=75522&cat=Asia
Shukri says:
“ If a Muslim is attacked, he is obliged by Sacred Law to defend himself in a manner that would eliminate or cripple the threat.”
“The violence and hate is engendered by non-Muslim invasion and occupation of Muslim lands. Where there is no invasion or occupation, there is no terrorism.”
“Forced conversion is prohibited in Islam.”
Shukri before you make statements like the above ones may I suggest that you study the Turkish conquest (or invasion or occupation) of Europe?
I’m Hungarian, and studied the Turkish occupation of Hungary from 1444 to 1683.
For a start there was naturally no Hungarian occupation of Turkish land what so ever prior to the invasion, or any form of Hungarian attack or provocation. Hungarians pretty much minded their own business. We can safely say, that the attack was entirely unprovoked on Hungary as well as on all the other countries during the Turkish conquest.
There are many written documents survived as well as stories, songs about that period, therefore one can get a fairly accurate picture of life under Muslim, Turkish occupation. Let me tell you all those documents and stories unanimously describe over two hundred years of terror. The Turkish army murdered, raped, looted, kidnapped on daily bases. They destroyed churches, and built mosques on top of them (not very tolerant of other religions is it?). They kidnapped tens of thousands of young boys and girls, whom all were forcibly converted to Islam. The boys went to the army as Janissaries, while the girls were given to the Turks as wives, mistresses or domestic slaves. The kidnapping and selling of Hungarian children was one of the most lucrative trades during Turkish rule, and there are many documents describe the fear most families lived in every day, because no children were safe anywhere. Believe me those young kids many of them as young as eight to ten years of age didn’t embrace Islam voluntarily, and the few who managed to escape and return to their families painted a terrifying picture of physical and mental torture and, oh yes FORCED CONVERSION.
The Turks had no respect for the indigenous population, and the entire population lived in terror. They had to pay crippling taxes, and if they didn’t pay on time, the answer was murder, rape, and looting from the Muslim Turkish army.
There is not ONE document story or song, which described the occupation any differently. None.
Now I could go on and on, but I’ll spare the readers. I understand that this is a very old example, it happened hundreds of years ago, but I believe it’s relevant, because your reasoning contains phrases like:
“..obliged by Sacred Law..” and “…prohibited in Islam…”
Hence you are implying that Muslims are tolerant and peaceful BECAUSE of the teachings of Islam. Well those teachings haven’t changed a bit, so I believe that the story of the Turkish invasion of Hungary is as relevant as any other recent example.
Oh just one more little thing:
After all the horrors of the Turkish occupation Hungary suffered, not one Hungarian ever tried to murder innocent Turks as a revenge for the occupation. No Hungarian mother ever put an explosive belt on their children, and sent them to murder innocent Turkish civilians. Never.
Oh no! I've made another Muslim angry by speaking the truth. I'm one more truth-telling session from getting beat down by assassins.
This cracks me up:
Allah isn't much of a 'God' if it's necessary to come back all the time with rules for things like farting, eating, or shaving your privates. This implies an imperfect, even broken-down creation.
Sorry I used logic.
Geoff... too funny! Thanks for the laughs. I do go to that site sometimes and get a kick out of these poor folks, that have to ask an imam how to whipe their hineys, what day they can trim the fingernails, etc.... Idjits.
any poster that thinks am going over the top by refusing to show any respect to muslims should check this out
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Default.htm
I would foul my left hand in greeting to one
Giaor
And the excuse is farcial, because Saddam was an apostate, a heretic and a declared enemy of Osama so said Osama and "respected" Muhammadan scholars, jurists and imams.
That's a bit ridiculous. The Jihadist Muslims see the United States in Iraq as an invasion and occupation of Islamic turf, of Dar al Islam. That this must not stand. Not saying I agree or care what they think, but that's how it is. And those who work with the Americans, especially Shi'ites are considered apostates and fair game for mass murder via cowardly suicide bombing and gunning down in the street.
Islam is an Arabian desert creed, with, at most, Mecca and Medina as its only 'rightful' area.
All the rest of the currently-considered "Islamic lands" were invaded and conquered by militant Muslim warriors -"accept Islam or die!" was the first truth of Mohammad, later amended to "accept Islam or die -...or you can also accept second class status, as 'peoples of the book', and pay the tribute/tax". (Pagans [non-Abraham followers] could just be killed, as usual.)
Therefore- only the region in what is now Saudi Arabia is technically Muslim land.
They need to restore the rest of the planet's pilfereed real estate to their original owners whom they stole it from.
You don't get title by theft.
Isn't there something in the Koran about what punishment is for robbery?
A guess we'll have a billion handless Muslims, if they are true to their own creed.
Allah demands it, doesn't he?
(One stump for yes, two stumps for no.)
Thanks, Geoff.