Sina: Is Political Islam Fascism?

Our good friend Ali Sina of Faith Freedom has sent us this article about political Islam. It is a thought-provoking analysis from someone who was born into Islam, raised in an Islamic society, and now, as an ex-Muslim, works to enlighten both questioning Muslims and interested non-Muslims as to the nature of Islam.

Also, there is an ongoing gnat infestation in my email box: a steady stream of messages from people either insulting Ali Sina and demanding I denounce him, or insulting me and saying that Ali ought to denounce me. Ali pointed out in an earlier article that divide and conquer is a tactic of war preached by the Prophet Muhammad. As a continuing indication to the senders of those messages that their campaign is not working, I am happy to put this up.

Islam is a religion with a very political agenda. The ultimate goal of Islam is to rule the world. But what kind of government an Islamic state would have?

It certainly won’t be democratic. Islam is not compatible with democracy. Amir Taheri, an Iranian born author/journalist in a debate on Islam and democracy argued that in fact the word democracy does not exist in any of the languages spoken by Muslims. “To understand a civilization,” Taheri said, “it is important to understand its vocabulary. If it was not on their tongues it is likely that it was not on their minds either.”

Democracy implies equality. But equality is unacceptable in Islam. Un-believers cannot be equal to believers and women are not equal to men. Even the non-Muslims are not deemed to be equal. The People of the Book (Jews and Christians) are accepted as second class citizens and allowed to live in an Islamic state provided they pay the protection tax; Jizyah. But the pagans, atheists and idolaters are not regarded as fully humans. According to the Quran, the idolaters are to be killed wherever they are found. (9:5)

In the April 9, 2002 issue, The Wall Street Journal published the concept of blood money in Saudi Arabia. If a person has been killed or caused to die by another, the latter has to pay blood money or compensation, as follow.

100,000 riyals if the victim is a Muslim man
50,000 riyals if a Muslim woman
50,000 riyals if a Christian man
25,000 riyals if a Christian woman
6,666 riyals if a Hindu man
3,333 riyals if a Hindu woman

According to this hierarchy, a Muslim man’s life is worth 33 times that of a Hindu woman. This hierarchy is based on the Islamic definition of human rights and is rooted in the Quran and Sharia (Islamic law). How can we talk of democracy when the concept of equality in Islam is inexistent?

Of course killing the idolaters “where ye find them” was not always expedient. What would the Muslim rulers in India gain if they killed all the Hindus? Over whom would they rule? So pragmatism often prevailed and the Muslim rulers would exert some degree of tolerance towards their pagan subjects. Furthermore, it is hard to find a Muslim ruler as ruthless as Muhammad himself. Muslim rulers killed whenever profit dictated and since live subjects were more profitable than dead ones, the extermination was not total as was intended by Muhammad. Nonetheless this tolerance was out of political expediency and not a right of the pagan. Muhammad’s butchery of his victims on the other hand, was psychopathological. He would massacre entire populations simply because they rejected him or hurt his humongous narcissistic ego.

The Christians and the Jews, the so called People of the Book, had some conditional rights. They had to pay Jizyah and buy their protection. Nonetheless they lived in a state of religious apartheid and were subject to humiliating treatments. For example, they were considered najis (impure) and were not allowed to go out on rainy days, lest their impurity may rub to a passing Muslim, make him “impure” and annul his prayer. The Jews and Christians were required to dismount from their donkey or horse if they met a Muslim in their way and they were supposed to greet the Muslim humbly and show submissiveness towards him. The Dhimmis were not allowed to build their houses taller than those of their Muslim neighbors and in some cases they were not allowed to build new churches and synagogues and needed permission to repair the existing ones.

Taheri said: “To say that Islam is incompatible with democracy should not be seen as a disparagement of Islam. On the contrary, many Muslims would see it as a compliment because they sincerely believe that their idea of rule by God is superior to that of rule by men which is democracy.”

One Islamic site explains: “In Western democracy, the people are sovereign; in Islam sovereignty is vested in Allah and the people are His caliphs or representatives. The laws given by Allah through His Prophet (Shari “˜ah) are to be regarded as constitutional principles that should not be violated.”

Taheri quoted several Muslim thinkers who expressed their disdain and disapproval of democracy.

“Ayatollah Khomeini called democracy “a form of prostitution” because he who gets the most votes wins the power that belongs only to Allah.
Sayyed Qutb, the Egyptian who is credited to be the ideological mentor of Safalists, spent a year in the United States in the 1950s and wrote: ” America is a nation that has forgotten God and been forsaken by Him; an arrogant nation that wants to rule itself.”
Yussuf al-Ayyeri, one of the leading theoreticians of today’s Islamist movement, published a book ( available on the Internet) in which he warned that the real danger to Islam did not come from American tanks and helicopter gunships in Iraq but from the idea of democracy and rule by the people.

Maudoodi, another of the Islamist theoreticians now fashionable, dreamed of a political system in which human beings would act as automatons in accordance with rules set by God.
He said that God has arranged man’s biological functions in such a way that their operation is beyond human control. For our non-biological functions, notably our politics, God has set rules that we have to discover and apply once and for all so that our societies can be on auto-pilot so to speak.

The late Saudi theologian, Sheikh Muhammad bin Ibrahim al-Jubair, a man I respected though seldom agreed with, sincerely believed that the root cause of all of our contemporary ills was the spread of democracy. “Only one ambition is worthy of Islam,” he liked to say, “the ambition to save the world from the curse of democracy: to teach men that they cannot rule themselves on the basis of manmade laws. Mankind has strayed from the path of God, we must return to that path or face certain annihilation.–

So what kind of government Islam is proposing?

Democracy means the rule of people. This is unacceptable in Islam. The Quran is empathic that “to Allah belong all Dominion and power” (2.165, 35:10, 35:13, 64:1). The words “No judgment but God’s” (la hukm illa li-llah) is based on several Quranic verses (esp. 6.57; 12.40, 67 etc.) This power is vested on His regent known as Khalifat al-Allah.

The Khalifa cannot legislate. He can only interpret the Law given in the Quran and the sunnah and apply it. Naturally, since the Quran is not a clear book, this allows for a wide range of interpretations and this explains why there are so many Islamic schools of thoughts and sects. “But the bottom line is” says Taheri, “that no Islamic government can be democratic in the sense of allowing the common people equal shares in legislation.”

Common people are called awwam, and as the saying goes: al-awwam kal anaam! (People are like animals).

It is up to the “experts” of the Law to interpret the Sharia and let the awwam know how they should live their lives. This endows the “expert” ruler, all the power and allows him to act as the deputy of God on Earth. There can be no opposition to the ruler. You can’t oppose God by opposing his representative.

In democracies people’s beliefs are irrelevant. They can belong to any religion or no religion and still manage to govern themselves in a secular state. This is not the case in monotheistic societies where God is the lawgiver. Christians and Jews have managed to separate the Church from the State. This evolution in Islam is not possible. The concept of Church (with capital C) as understood in Christianity does not exist in Islam. There is no authority like the Vatican or the Church of England in Islam. The Mullahs and Imams are average Muslims who through their knowledge of the Quran and Sharia gain reputation among the ummah and their own peers. You can’t separate the Islamic “Church” from politics, because there is no such thing as the Islamic “Church”. Every Mullah can interpret the Sharia in his own way. But he can’t redefine the explicit teachings of Islam.

Presently Muslims do not have a khalifa. But even if they had, the khalifa would not have been able to deviate from the Quran and announce the separate Islam from politics.

Islam’s main goal is to give the dominion of this world to its “rightful” owner, Allah. No authority on Earth can change that. Impeding Islam to achieve this goal is denying its raison d’être and it is tantamount to blasphemy. Islam by definition is imperialistic.

It must advance, conquer and reclaim the dominion of all Earth or there is no reason for it to exist.

Democracies are pluralistic. People have different faiths and are free to criticize, not only each other’s religions but also their own. Islam does not tolerate that. Anyone who dares to criticize Islam faces severe punishment including execution or assassination. Islam is regarded as The Truth, the Only Truth and the Absolute Truth. Defying this truth is the same as defying God and that cannot be tolerated. Challenging the authority of the representative of God is like challenging God himself.

On May 27, 1999 Rafsanjani, one of the ruling Mullahs of Iran said: “If the Islamic nature and fundamental pillar of the state and the velayat-e faqih (Shiite version of khalifa) are undermined, nothing would be left around.” The same day, Khatami, the so called “reformist” president of the Islamic Republic said in the city of Qom: “Society’s parting with religion and the clergy is the beginning of our fall.” Khatami in July 5, 1998 said: “velayat-e faqih is the axis and pillar of the state,” he reiterated, “velayat-e faqih is the raison d’être of our state. As such, opposing it… is to oppose the fundamentals and pillar of the state”¦.No state would tolerate assaults on its principles and pillars,” he said. [Iran Zamin News Agency]

In a commentary, defines the concept of velayat-e faqis which is not distinct from that of khilafat: “In the theory of velayate faqih none of us can tell the difference between good and bad and, indeed, the whole edifice of the clerical rulership has been constructed to cope with our “ignorance”. The supreme clerical leader is our custodian (qayyem), and we are like sheep that if separated from our shepherd would surely be lost. The velayate faqih embodies every rights and the rest of us are only to carry duties. At its most pithy definition, the system of velayate faqih is the expression of this ignorance and absence of rights on our part in contrast with the all knowing, all powerful, clerical ruler.”

Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader explained the concept of velaya-e faqih, the position that he himself is occupying, with an uncanny frankness when he said: “the leadership means that point where the insoluble problems of government are solved at his hands. His person lights up the truth for the people and exposes the conspiracies of the enemy.” [ibid]

In the Islamic state religion is preeminent and God serves as the only legitimate source of legislation. Temporal rulers merely implement the laws of Islam as dictated by God.

The following article titled “Essential Features of the Islamic Political System” explains the concept of khilafat as understood by Muslims.

“The political system of Islam is based on three principles: Tawhid (unity of Allah), Risalat (Prophethood) and Khilafat (vicegerency).
Tawhid means that only Allah is the Creator, Sustainer and Master of the universe and of all that exists in it organic or inorganic. The sovereignty of this kingdom is vested only in Him. He alone has the right to command or forbid. Worship and obedience are due to Him alone, no one and nothing else shares it in any way. Life, in all its forms, our physical organs and faculties, the apparent control which we have over nearly everything in our lives and the things themselves, none of them has been created or acquired by us in our own right. They have been bestowed on us entirely by Allah. Hence, it is not for us to decide the aim and purpose of our existence or to set the limits of our authority; nor is anyone else entitled to make these decisions for us. This right rests only with Allah, who has created us, endowed us with mental and physical faculties, and provided material things for our use.

This principle of the unity of Allah totally negates the concept of the legal and political independence of human beings, individually or collectively. No individual, family, class or race can set themselves above Allah. Allah alone is the Ruler and His commandments are the Law.

The medium through which we receive the law of Allah is known as Risalat. We have received two things from this source: the Book in which Allah has set out His law, and the authoritative interpretation and exemplification of the Book by the Prophet, blessings and peace be on him through word and deed, in his capacity as the representative of Allah. The Prophet, blessings and peace be on him, has also, in accordance with the intention of the Divine Book, given us a model for the Islamic way of life by himself implementing the law and providing necessary details where required. The combination of these two elements is called the Shari “˜ah.

Now consider Khilafat. According to the Arabic lexicon, it means “˜representation”. Man, according to Islam, is the representative of Allah on earth, His vicegerent. That is to say, by virtue of the powers delegated to him by Allah, he is required to exercise his Allah-given authority in this world within the limits prescribed by Allah.

A state that is established in accordance with this political theory will in fact be a human caliphate under the sovereignty of Allah and will do Allah’s will by working within the limits prescribed by Him and in accordance with His instructions and injunctions.”

This definition makes clear that the rule of Islamic system of government is not limited to Muslims but to every “organic or inorganic” thing that exists in this universe. This of course includes the non-Muslims. In an Islamic state everyone must live according to the dictates of Islam.

What we learned so far is that khilafat or the velayat-e faqih are not dissimilar to fascism.

The Columbia Encyclopedia, defines fascism as: “A totalitarian philosophy of government that glorifies the state and nation and assigns to the state control over every aspect of national life.”

Characteristics of Fascist Philosophy:

“Fascism, especially in its early stages, is obliged to be antitheoretical and frankly opportunistic in order to appeal to many diverse groups. Nevertheless, a few key concepts are basic to it. First and most important is the glorification of the state and the total subordination of the individual to it. The state is defined as an organic whole into which individuals must be absorbed for their own and the state’s benefit. This “total state” is absolute in its methods and unlimited by law in its control and direction of its citizens.

A second ruling concept of fascism is embodied in the theory of social Darwinism. The doctrine of survival of the fittest and the necessity of struggle for life is applied by fascists to the life of a nation-state. Peaceful, complacent nations are seen as doomed to fall before more dynamic ones, making struggle and aggressive militarism a leading characteristic of the fascist state. Imperialism is the logical outcome of this dogma. Another element of fascism is its elitism. Salvation from rule by the mob and the destruction of the existing social order can be effected only by an authoritarian leader who embodies the highest ideals of the nation. This concept of the leader as hero or superman, borrowed in part from the romanticism of Friedrich Nietzsche, Thomas Carlyle, and Richard Wagner, is closely linked with fascism’s rejection of reason and intelligence and its emphasis on vision, creativeness, and the will.”

Let us compare that to Islam. Islam is opportunistic par excellence. It is extremely deceptive and despite being a doctrine of war it portrays itself as the religion of peace. It wants to have a universal appeal. It subjugates women and Muhammad was a misogynist of the worst kind but its apologists present him as the champion of women’s rights. The Quran is an asinine book of nonsense, yet its defenders claim that it is a miracle which contains scientific facts. It opposes knowledge and technology, yet it is presented as the religion that encourages learning. Muslims are fond of reminding others that Muhammad said “seek knowledge even if it is China” But the fact is that any knowledge that is perceived as contradicting the Quran is regarded satanic and is to be destroyed.

The Royal Library of Alexandria in Egypt was once the largest in the world. It was founded at the beginning of the 3rd century BC during the reign of Ptolemy II of Egypt . It stored at its peak 400,000 to 700,000 scrolls. In 640 AD Muslims took the city and upon learning of “a great library containing all the knowledge of the world” the conquering general asked Khalifa Omar for instructions. Omar has been quoted as saying of the Library’s holdings, “they will either contradict the Quran, in which case they are heresy, or they will agree with it, so they are superfluous.” And to be on the safe side he ordered the library to be destroyed and the books burnt.

This is how Muslims try to portray a false image of Islam so it can have a broad appeal.

However, the most important feature of Islamic polity is the glorification of Islamic state and the total subordination of the individual to it.

Just like in fascism, the Islamic state is defined as an organic whole to which individuals must submit. In Islam “freedom” is in submission to Allah and his messenger. The very word Islam, which Muslims deceptively translate as peace, means submission. What is good for Islam and the Islamic state is good for Muslims and what is bad for Islam and the Islamic state is to be spurned and regarded as bad for the Muslims too. Islam and the establishment of Islam’s dominion is the greater good and the ultimate goal that every Muslim must strive for.

The Islamic site writes: “The highest organization in society is the state. Islam has given to the world the practical form and ideals of statehood. Therefore, the question of how religion should inspire, inform and discipline life, is naturally related to the question of how should it be related to the highest organization of society (i.e. the state).”

The other ruling of Islam is the concept of Jihad and the necessity to struggle in order to advance the Islamic dominance. The motto that “Islam is a religion of peace” is a preposterous slogan that is part of the strategy of the Islamic “Game of Deception”. Islam does not mean peace, it does not preach peace, it has never been peaceful and it will never be. Islam has advanced through aggressive militarism and regards Jihad and martyrdom as the most meritorious acts. Islam is militant and imperialistic by its very nature.

Fascism is elitist. Islam is also elitist. The Khalifa or the velayat-e faqih is the ultimate authority on Earth. He is the one who can read the scriptures and the only one who can understand them properly. His word is the ultimate undisputable decree. However theoretically, just as in communism, anyone can aspire to become Khalifa. The Khalifa in Sunni sect is elected by the populace while the velayate-e faqih in Shiism is nominated by a body of the ruling Mullahs called: “The Assembly of Experts”. Whether this ruler is elected or nominated, just like in other totalitarian regimes, he occupies his seat for life and responds to no human authority.
Another similarity of Islam and fascism is the disdain of reason and intelligence in both ideologies. In Islam, the emphasis is on faith and unquestioning obedience to the mandates of God. Reason is rejected as a fallacy. Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali, (1058 – 1111 CE) is arguably the greatest Islamic scholar ever. In his book “Incoherence of the Philosophers” he bitterly denounced Aristotle, Plato, Socrates and other Greek thinkers as non-believers and labeled those who employed their methods and ideas as corrupters of the Islamic faith. He took aim at Avicenna for being a rationalist who drew intellectually upon the Ancient Greeks. By emphasizing on the incompatibility of faith and reason, and by asserting the futility of making faith subordinate to reason, Ghazali gave validity to unreasoned faith and thus glorified stupidity.

Watt says: “The early period of Islamic thought is dominated by the conception of the unchangeability of true religion and the special Arab and Islamic conception of the nature of knowledge. Knowledge that is important for the conduct of life — and this is knowledge in the fullest sense — is obtained in the revealed words of God and in the sayings of prophets and other specially gifted men. From this conception of knowledge it follows that the work of the scholar is to transmit accurately the revealed text and other wise sayings”. [The Formative Period of Islamic Thought, p.63]

It is important to note that when Muslims talk about knowledge, they are talking about the “revealed” knowledge and not the secular scientific knowledge that has given birth to our civilization. The word science in Arabic is Ilm. The people, who possess this Ilm, are called Ulama. But Ulama does not mean scientists. It means religious scholars. Ilm is religious science. Islam does not encourage the learning of science. Islamic languages don’t have even a proper word for it. Islam encourages religious learning. This is what Muhammad meant when he said “seek knowledge”. Seeking knowledge in Islam, means memorizing the Quran and the hadith.

Inspired by the Quran various Muslim groups have employed sectarian violence to achieve political ends. The first group was Kharijiyya. The Kharijiyya insisted on two things. First, that the Islamic community must be based on the Quran. The second point emphasized the ascendancy of the Islamic state over the individual rights. Motivated by many verses of the Quran (32.13, 76:29-31, 3:39, 3:159, 16:93, 2:6-7, 4:88, etc.), they maintained that God’s will, must supersede men’s will and claimed the community is the bearer of the values that constitutes meaningfulness, in other words men’s life has meaning only if he belongs to Muslim community. This is how fascism defines the position of the individual vis-à-vis the state. These ideas were based on the Quran and were eventually adopted by the rest of the Muslims.

The Islamic rationalists such as Mutazilis placed reason above revelation. But their school was vehemently opposed by more fervent Islamists and became extinct. They were attacked by a group called Ashariyya to which al-Ghazali and the celebrated poet Rumi belonged. Rumi mocked the rationalists and in a catchy verse that left its mark on the psyche of the gullible masses said the rationalists stand on “wooden legs”.

The Ashariyya glorified irrationality and remained faithful to the Quran. They rejected the rationalists whom, in their view, had forsaken religion and had detracted from God and his revelation. Thus rational objectivism was quashed with mockery and violence, the books of rationalists such as Zakaria Razi were destroyed and they themselves had to hide for their safety. The Ashariyya won because they had the backing of the Quran, the rationalists did not.
With Ashariyyah’s unconditional embrace of the authority of revelation, and their glorification of irrationality, rationalism was nipped in the bud and most likely the Renascence that was about to be born 1000 years ago, did not. We shall never know the extent of the harm that these celebrated religious zealots caused to mankind’s civilization.

In an article titled: Is Rumi What We Think He Is? Massoume Price quotes Dr. Shaffiee Kadkani who wrote: “unfortunately the emergence of geniuses such as Rumi and other Urafa (religious mystics) who unconditionally supported Ashariyya did not give freedom of thought a chance”. He concludes, “If it wasn’t because of Ashariyya our history might have evolved differently”. [Creation and History, (Afarinesh va Tarikh, p.50)]

Price contends: “It is not a coincidence that in Mathnavi, Rumi attacks all thinkers including atheists, naturalists and philosophers etc”¦. When Ibn Khadon [Khaldun] troduction (Mogadameh) [Muqaddimah] t Africans are black because of geographical and environmental conditions, it was the Ashariyya who ended such scientific observations by declaring people are black because God created them as such. When Physicians tried to find the connection between the brain and hand’s movements, it was Imam Muhammad Ghazali who mocked scientific inquiry and stated “hands move because God wants them to move” (Alchemy of Happiness, Kimiyaya Saadat). It was Ashariyya who imposed inquisition culture that still exists today and haunts us even in North America.”

The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, (Third Edition. 2002) says: “As a rule, fascist governments are dominated by a dictator, who usually possesses a magnetic personality, wears a showy uniform, and rallies his followers by mass parades; appeals to strident nationalism; and promotes suspicion or hatred of both foreigners and “impure” people within his own nation, such as the Jews in Germany.”

In Islam, the Khalifa does not wear a showy uniform. On the contrary, in accordance to Muhammad’s sunnah, he exerts himself to make a public “display of modesty”. Modesty is just a show and a hallmark of Islam. The more modest you dress, the more pious you look. But the Friday prayers and the hajj are the Islamic version of mass parades that are designed to impress the believer, give him a sense of pride and belonging and make him firm in his belief that Islam is strong.

This parade to Muhammad was so important that in one hadith he is quoted saying:

“I thought that I should order the prayer to be commenced and command a person to lead people in prayer, and I should then go along with some persons having a fagot of fuel with them to the people who have not attended the prayer (in congregation) and would burn their houses with fire. [Muslim4,1370; Bukhari1,11,626]

Islam also promoted suspicion and hatred of the unbelievers. Muhammad said that the unbelievers are impure (najis) 9:28 and instilled in them the hatred of the Jews, saying God transformed them into apes and swine. 2.65, 5.60, 7.166

Clearly Islamic system of government is fascistic.
“¢ It is marked by centralization of authority under a supreme leader vested with divine clout.
“¢ It has stringent socioeconomic control over all aspects of all its subjects irrespective of their faith.
“¢ It suppresses its opposition through terror and censorship.
“¢ It has a policy of belligerence towards non-believers.
“¢ It practices religious apartheid.
“¢ It disdains reason.
“¢ It is imperialistic.
“¢ It is oppressive.
“¢ It is dictatorial and
“¢ It is controlling.

Islam, like fascism, appeals to people with low self esteem and low intelligence. Both these ideologies are irrational. They disdain reason, and hail devotion and submission to a higher authority. Like fascists, Muslims are triumphalists. They seek power, domination and control. They pride themselves in their strength of number, in their mindless heroism, in their disdain for life and in their willingness to kill and die for their cause.

Islam is political and political Islam is fascism.

FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint


  1. says

    Another marvelous contribution by Ali Sina.

    In speaking about how Sharia is implemented in the Khalifa Ali Sina says,

    “It is up to the “experts” of the Law to interpret the Sharia and let the awwam (common people) know how they should live their lives. This endows the “expert” ruler, all the power and allows him to act as the deputy of God on Earth. There can be no opposition to the ruler. You can’t oppose God by opposing his representative.”

    Doesn’t this characterization of the roles to be played by Sharia ‘experts’ remind us of the arguments that Khaleel Mohammad and other ‘Islamic scholars’ employ in attacking Spencer? Spencer is ‘ignorant’ and ‘no scholar’. He does not have the slightest idea what the ‘divine Qur’an’ says. Mohammad and other ‘Muslim scholars’ are the ‘experts’. And there can be no opposition. Spencer does have the right degree. Spencer is a liar. Spencer is ‘ignorant’ (one more time). Exclude him. He is a heretic and (unspoken) an enemy.

    Isn’t this generally the content and tone of the attacks against Spencer by so-called Islamic ‘scholars’? Reason goes out the window. Spencer’s careful documentation of frightful Islamic texts, traditions, and practices are demonized: no need for further discussion. He does not belong in the same domain as the ‘scholars of the house’.

    This is intellectual fascism with a horrifying collectivist ring to it.

  2. says

    That is exactly the sort of thing that Europeans should hear from ex-Muslims. All power to this mans pen and may he keep safe.

  3. says

    I’ve posted the above link a number of times, and I feel that it’s apropriate to post it here again. We do indeed by now know a great deal about Islam but many of us are in lacking awareness of fascism per se, our over-arching enemy, of which Islam is merely one manifestation, though by far the most dangerous in our time.

    There are those who complain that Socratic elenchus and aporia are fascist concepts; but rightly ignoring those people we can find the best synopsis of the fascist ethos and personality in Eric Hoffer’s The True Believer, a must read for all of us and our friends. Once we can identify the truth of fascism we will see clearly that the Left is conflated with the fascist Right in its reaction against the ideals of both the French and American Revolutions, in its philobarbarism, in its romanticism and irrationalism, and even in the relativism of ecologism.

    Ours is a huge struggle against reaction, Islam being only one facet of that. Take a few days and learn about the corporatist state, the cult of personality, the myth-mongering romanticism and glorying in the fetish of personal violence, the “grand gesture” of death worship, and in a few days you will see clearly the obvious conflation of the anti-war movement in the West and the suiside-bombings and death romance of fascim in Islam.

    Our struggle isn’t simply against the evils of Islam: Our struggle is also against the general fascism of post-Heideggerian Leftism in the West. Until we can correctly identify our problem, as we do with Islam specifically, we will never correctly identify the proper response to it.

  4. says

    Isn’t “post-Heideggerian Leftism” a vague generalization? What thinkers, what ideas, what theories, belong to this category and which do not? And if one cannot answer these kinds of questions with any certainty, then how can we identify this ‘problem’ which requires such a grave response? Shouldn’t we ourselves be very careful to listen critically to the arguments, theories, and views of thinkers whom we might categorize as ‘leftist’ (however we interpret that), as well as so-called Islamic ‘scholars’? If we do not do that, if we apply vague generalizations to others whom we then identify as ‘the opposition’, haven’t we ourselves transgressed upon a few of the signs of Ur-Faciscm noted by Umberto Eco?

    Ali Sina’s commentary is well grounded in particular sources. I believe my commentary above is also well grounded by the content and tone of several critics of Spencer. And shouldn’t we always be critically assessing the grounds for the generalizations we make? And, if we live in a state of resistance against the kind of ‘spirit’ that Eco calls ‘Ur-fascism’, shouldn’t our categories, ideas, conclusions always be subject to revision in light of new evidence?

  5. says

    I’m not sure who the author of this article is, I thought it was U.Eco when I read it but after seeing your link, now I’m not sure.

    The author of that piece, which uses Eco’s fourteen identifying characteristics of Islam, is Ibn Warraq.

  6. says

    Oh, Shy, I think you’re being too negative. Islam highly values the death of Jews, though not in the exact sense of the above.

    /sarcasm off



  7. says

    Four paragraphs would usually lead to vague generalizations at best. It might also be the beginning of some questions. The two paragraphs in response? Well, let’s give it some thought and maybe come up with some answers that might lead to an open discussion. We can begin with defining fascism itself. From there we can look at Neitzche’s Dionysian cycles as opposed to Western progressivism and even delve deeper into the great cesspool of fascist thought.

    I’m out of time for today, but given the real gravity of this problem I will continue when I return so we can pick apart the details of the alliance of the philobarbarist Left and the fascist irationalist of Islam.

  8. says

    This is especially important for the thousands of Hindus living in Saudi, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, etc. since the men usually bring their wives and daughters.

    It seems the Saudis et al. have a problem with actually producing their own engineers, janitors, scientists, maids, etc.

    Now one may ask, “Why would they even import non-Muslims to do this work”? (Especially considering all those “millions” of “palestinians” living in “diaspora” and in “refugee camps.”)

    The answer is simple. They have some sweet, young exotic thing on the side. If she puts up a fight, threaten her with deportation (or even prison for–say–“blaspheming the prophet” or plant some liquor on her and call the Morality Police)… and if things REALLY get out of hand, and she is killed, no big whoop; “Here’s yer check buddy now go away you bother me. Next?”

  9. says

    Are these rates fixed for all time or are they adjusted for inflation?

    Again, do currency fluctuations play any part?

    If both these hold, then I suppose it is necessary that islamic banks post these rates up on a daily basis. One can then take out the required insurance before one sets off to dar ul islam.

    Islam never ceases to disappoint in the barbarian stakes.

  10. says

    I’m out of time for today, but given the real gravity of this problem I will continue when I return so we can pick apart the details of the alliance of the philobarbarist Left and the fascist irationalist of Islam.

    … I realize a VERY IMPORTANT person like yourself my not have much time, but hows about you talk about the many, many similarities between Islam and conservative christianity?

    Here, let me help you:

    They both hate homosissies, lesbians, “uppity” women, feminists, abortion, birth control, and sodomy (even between man and wife). They both want “God’s Law” in the schools, the courts, the media, and the arts. They both want a return to “the good old days” when “God’s Law” ruled the land. They both believe that everyone else goes to hell. They both hate secularism, humanism, and intellectualism. The both hate environmentalists, liberals, and “political correctness”. They both “know what’s best for us.” They hate drugs, drug users, and pornography. They believe in fairy-tale scriptures, think that they have aaaall the answers on how to govern everyone, and think that men should control women.

    Well, that should serve as a good start for you (even though I’m sure you “won’t have time” or “won’t lower yourself” to answer.)

    BTW… “Islam” (via the House of Saud) puts the value of a Jewish life as about $25,000, the amount of money they give the families of “martyrs” that kill Jews in Israel.

  11. says

    I wish we all would stop referring to Islam as a Religion. This gives them a legitimatising that is contradicted by their violent actions and history.

  12. says

    Great article by Ali Sina once again, Islamofascism has always been as good a expression as any other, just that some seems to think it is a misunderstanding of islam, quite on the contrary luckily most moslems are better persons than muhammed.

    “BTW… “Islam” (via the House of Saud) puts the value of a Jewish life as about $25,000, the amount of money they give the families of “martyrs” that kill Jews in Israel.”

    Yea and if Saddam was still at large they could have gotten 25000 $ from him as well, making it a profitable business with little effort, really a thing for an arab.

    I hope Ali Sina is right that internet will be the end of islam soon.

  13. says

    From the article,

    “”Ayatollah Khomeini called democracy “a form of prostitution” because he who gets the most votes wins the power that belongs only to Allah.”

    This statement presumes that those to be ruled believe the Sharia, derived from the Koran, is a directive from the Almighty, but totally negates the opinions or desires of those who do not.

    This vile presumption begs the obvious questions: What earthly man will ensure these “laws” are implemented over the populus? How will the abuse of power be curbed? Is not the clerical hierarchy a manmade institution? An institution of the elite to maintain control over the ignorant masses?

    If a consensus is indeed possible amongst the inherents of this peculiar doctrine, what of the detractors?

    The Ayatollah was correct. Democracy works only for infidels who care nothing of the power of Islam’s Allah.

    The Shariah of Allah is the means for ambition men to assume and maintain power over those who have been indoctrinated.

  14. says

    A fascinating link above to a supreme Islamic apologist, Muhammad Hamidullah. Very slippery reasoning and interpretation of ‘Islamic law’, but consider the following:

    “The Islamic law makes a certain distinction among different non-Muslim communities, insofar as their relations with individual Muslims are concerned. It divides non-Muslims into what we might call “developed” and “primitive,” or those who believe in the One God and follow Divine laws revealed to the founder of their religions, and those who do not do that (such idolators, atheists, pagans, animists, etc.). All are tolerated as subjects and enjoy protection with regard to the liberty of conscience and life, yet a Muslim in his private life treats them differently: a Muslim has the right to marry a “developed” non-Muslim woman, but not a ” primitive” one. So is it too that a Muslim may not only marry a Christian or a Jewish girl, but also give her the liberty to conserve her religion. She may go to church or to synagogue, she may drink wine, etc. It is forbidden for a Muslim to marry a woman who does not believe in God or an idolatress or a polytheist. A Muslim woman cannot be the wife of non-Muslim to whatever category he may belong (Q. 60:10). Again, a Muslim cannot eat the flesh of animals slaughtered by members of the “primitive” communities”

    Well, let’s forget the distinction between Hamidullah’s interpretation of ‘Islamic law’, which I suppose comes from an ‘expert’, and the practice of Islamic law in Islamic traditions and societies. Forget about what really has transpired and is transpiring in Muslim societies. We will just ‘listen to the expert’ to get our facts straight. And, of course, this is all “TRUE” and anyone who says otherwise, like Ali Sina, is a ‘liar’. Yep, we have some real argument here, don’t we?

    But it seems ‘the expert’ agrees with that lying Ali Sina one a few points: one must distinguish that a hierarchy exists between different kinds of people who possess different rights: Male believers (who get the priviledge of marrying ‘advanced’ non-Muslim women, who even gets to go to church or synagogue and drink wine. But what about the kids?), female believers (who must marry a Muslim; can’t breed without a Muslim male at the head of the household), and then ‘advanced non-Muslims’ and ‘primitives’.

    Yep, true egalitarianism from ‘the expert’ himself. And watch out for that animal flesh from those ‘primitive communities’, which I suppose includes your local, atheist, German butcher.

    And none of this stuff about judge lest you be judged. Nope, you can know for sure that those ‘primitives’ are going to burn in hell, but, out of the kindness of Muslim hearts, they will be spared that fate on earth. Or so says our ‘expert’.

  15. says


    Such language! Very unlady-like!

    As for the blood money –

    At the posted rates for death we should simply pay up.

    It would be a lot cheaper than the war in Iraq and we could get feed to watch the heads roll.

    It doesn’t seem to bother the Saudis, so why should it bother us?

  16. says


    Such language! Very unlady-like!

    As for the blood money –

    At the posted rates for death we should simply pay up.

    It would be a lot cheaper than the war in Iraq and we could get feed to watch the heads roll.

    It doesn’t seem to bother the Saudis, so why should it bother us?

  17. says

    “A tactic of the deceptive: Overwhelm the reader with so much lies that he won’t be able to think about whether what he is reading is accurate or not.”

    Well, that may explain the responses I used to get from Sunnis on-line. Then again, simply posting a weblink to another site is more of the same thing, really: demand the reader to spend their time reading da’wa, as if the evidence already described were no good. I apologize for my long refutation of Shurki’s site; shit requires much cleaning if one wishes the floor not to be stained with its stink.

    Shurki, I notice that you rarely deal with the real issues, like the concept of how women, and Christians, and Hindus, and of course Jews, are worth so much less in islam than other people. Attaching a monetary amount is confirmation of this.

    The first part of the site in section 409 is the most telling: muslims (some of them, anyway) seem to think that their laws have divine origin, as if the existence of this ‘allah’ had been proven. Leaving that aside, 411 contradicts directly all the Quranic passages about Christians and Jews going to heaven:

    “411. The believers and nonbeliever’s cannot be equals, the former will go to Paradise, and the latter to hell, but all this concerns the Hereafter.”

    Perversely, the Quran itself argues, rather, for earthly intolerance and heavenly acceptance; the latter, however, is itself restricted to only a few cases, ascribed to only a small sampling of all Christians and Jews.

    “The Qur’an (2:256) prescribes that there should be no compulsion in religion.”

    Regrettably, Q 2:256 can also be interpreted as “There is no compulsion in religion BECAUSE Islam is perfect” (which, regrettably, it is not). The phrase following this one is particularly telling in this regard (Q 2:256): “FOR the hand that has grasped the right way is henceforth immune to error.” Moreover, some theologians also use Sura 9 as an abrogation of Q 2:256. It’s utility as an argument in favour of Shurki’s point is, unquestionably, in extreme doubt. Let’s carry on.

    “Qur’an (9:6): “And if anyone of the pagans seeketh thy asylum (O Muhammad), then give him asylum . . . and afterwards convey him to his place of safety .”

    Conveniently, the middle part of the phrase is omitted. (I must admit that I never imagined anyone would so deliberately and blatantly cut phrases like that for the sake of propaganda, but there it is!) Pickthall’s transation goeth:

    “Q 9:6 And if anyone of the idolaters [Christians and Jews, clearly, since Shurki’s site uses it in this manner, thus answering once and for all who are meant by ‘idolaters’] seeketh thy protection, then protect him SO THAT HE MAY HEAR THE WORD OF ALLAH; and AFTERWARD convey him to his place of safety. That is because they are a folk that know not.” [my emphasis]

    Difficult to believe Shurki wasn’t aware of this. Anyway, while ‘Allah’s’ assertion that we ‘know not’ is trite and ignorant, the point is that such magnamity is only due to those who can be converted. As for the rest? Well, simple reading of Sura 9 would tell you their due: death or punitive taxation. (I do agree with the site that this is, ahem, “stupefying”. In the sense that believing it makes you more stupid.)

    In the same vein, Q 5:2 appears to be deceptively cited: “let not your hatred of a folk who stopped your going to the Inviolate Place of Worship seduce you to transgress; but help ye one another unto righteousness and pious duty. Help not one another unto sin and transgression but keep your duty to Allah..” blah blah.

    Where exactly in that does it refers to helping unbelievers? The ‘Editor’ needs a refresher course in logical thinking, or perhaps in thinking altogether.

    Speaking of deception, there is a point about a clause 25 (which, of course, has no reference to anywhere) and of course uses the “…”, so it seems apparent that the point, whatever it was, can’t be trusted if it comes from the editors of that site – they’ve already shown predilection for deceptive usage, as above. I would ask why the Jews needed to be forced to become part of this muslim state under the political leader Mohammed, but let us leave that aside for the moment.

    In 420 we hear of the creation of islam in a time of violence – a tradition, many argue, which it has held to this day – and of course of the “welcome” of non-muslims of non-requirement of military service. (One asks, of course, why they should be required to either serve in a muslim army attacking other, non-muslim states or pay punitive taxes, but again let us set this argument aside for the moment.)

    Of course, non-muslims were also hit with a severe tax termed the jizya, levied at roughly double (occassionally higher, though not often) the zakat which muslims paid – the latter was also voluntary in many places. I note also that the exemption of women and children from paying taxes is essentially a non-starter; neither were required to pay zakat (nor were many muslim men!), so this is hardly indicative of the ‘tolerance’ of islam for its minorities. “Look how tolerant we are! We do not tax your women or children!” strikes me as something one of the villains in a story-tale might say, so ludicrously ‘bonhomme’ is its character. =) Similarly, Mohammed’s supposed statement reported by Idn Sa’d that “Had h[his son Ibrahim] survived, I would have exempted all the Copts from the jizyah, as a mark of esteem for Ibrahim’s mother” falls in the same vein – a petty tyrant proclaiming his greatness through the evil that he does not do. This last phrase is also dull:

    “There are jurists who opine that one should also take into consideration the international repercussions affecting Muslim interests, in view of the fact that Islam has penetrated countries which are under non-Muslim domination; and the jizyah territory would inevitably produce a reaction on Muslims in Christian and other countries.”

    Regrettably, they did, but were unable militarily to do anything about it until around 1493 (I believe), and of course the Reconquest against muslim occupiers in Spain (real occupiers this time, Shurki, not like the Americans who are leaving shortly).

    422 is a wonderful rejoinder that non-Muslim slaves were in some cases NOT deported to other places and that they remained with their muslim masters. How wonderful. Muslims, of course, being slaves to non-Muslims, is beyond the pale in islam, and is correspondingly not mentioned.

    423 is, well, ridiculous: “Whoever oppresses non-Muslim subjects, shall find me to be their advocate on the day of Resurrection.” Again, as we can’t trust the web site Shurki gives, I have removed the speculative treatment at the end. The phrase is now given, frankly, as it properly reads without the nonsensical spin from the web site that contradicts all grammatical usage.

    425-426 Umar as I recall was particularly disliked; a role model for islam? He was also instrumental in muslim conquest in North Africa and the Middle East. So while he was perhaps accepting of dhimmis – non-muslims properly in their place – he was not too accepting of non-muslim nations. Not a model of tolerance, anyway.

    427. Imams directing religious services for ALL faiths is, frankly, disgusting. But perhaps Shurki has a point. Perhaps it’s time to simply export all imams and replace them with Catholic priests, Protestant reverends, Jewish rabbis. After all, we “desire the coordination of all aspects of life, spiritual as well as temporal” in our communities, no? Ought we not do as ‘Allah’ demands? The maker of Shurki’s site appears to be mentally deficient.

    Notably, this also conflicts with 431 where Christians are “allowed to pick their own priests”. How interesing. In effect, one can see quite clearly how the site designer has deliberately “cherry-picked” his points to accord maximum sympathy for his position. Nice. In my profession, we call this “lying”. Islam may have different rules.

    428. Permission of non-Muslims to hold any job was hardly uniform, then or now. For example, Christians may not be officers in the Iranian army. The website does at least admit that a non-Muslim could not be head of state.

    429: Dhimmis, as all familiar with the history of islam know, did NOT have social rights on par with muslims. This is reviewed elsewhere, but constitutes in brief: restrictions on religious worship and continuance of non-muslim faiths (no tolling bells, no high churches, no repairs to existing churches, no construction of new ones), prohibitance of muslim women from marrying non-muslim men, punititve taxation (designed to be as humiliating as possible), the wearing of distinctive dress (what was it – in the shape of a pig for Christians and a donkey for Jews? Not quite a yellow Star of David, but one can see where Hitler got some of his material from this is also covered in 432 as some kind of “benefit” to the oppressed) and so forth. I’m sure Hugh, BigSleep, kepha, shiva and the lot can fill in the ones I’ve missed.

    433: Gee, non-muslims have legal protection. How strange that their testimony was so worthless in islamic society; less that than even a woman is considered in most muslim nations, which is 1/2 of the value of a man (the blood-money list also indicates this; surely a critical task for islamic jurists, no?). “The Sword of the Prophet” discusses more of these legal aspects in some detail; I recommend it highly. Then again, perhaps 433 has some value; a non-muslim citizen seems most protected after his death, when at least he cannot make the mistake of insulting someone’s islamic beard, or accidentally raking some dead leaves against the side of a mosque. I have little doubt that this is the preferred condition for most non-muslims, according to “muslim jurists”. =D

    434: “the Christians themselves preferred a monetary compensation and the matter was thus amicably be settled” Sure. Treaty of Umayyid, anyone? This is, again, a direct conflict with that which is already known about islamic “jurisprudence”.

    I’ll leave off the letters; that one of the Caliph Umar’s examples concerns the legal right of a non-muslim SLAVE is answer enough.

    438: I love these “rights” islam allows non-muslims, which must be so peculiar to our nature: alcohol, gambling, MARRIAGE WITH CLOSE RELATIVES, interest payments, etc. How nice. The most amusing thing about all that is that under Judeo-Christianity, marriage closer than second cousins is not allowed, and is, in fact, illegal in almost any Western state you’d care to name =). CONVERSELY, the same is NOT true in islam: first cousins are not “forbidden” at all, and if the news of prevailing social practice we hear about muslim countries is at all true, STRONGLY ENCOURAGED. This point had me laughing; the subtle bigotry of the author is just scentable. (“Alcohol, cousin-love, gambling? Well that’s ok by us, you idolaters. But building a church? Not in our nation, filthy Christians!”) This struck me as intensely amusing. I note that cousin intermarriage produces an inbreeding rate of approximately 3.1% per generation (!!!); practicing islam seems to be INCREDIBLY hazardous genetically for the health of your moderately distant descendants onward. I mean, good God. First cousins? Incredible.

    I’ll leave off the rest to 440, as I’m also a busy fellow. =) I won’t even bother with “Holy War (441-2); the stupidity and susceptibility to misuse is evident. I’ll just conclude with 440: Apostacy.

    440 Justification for apostacy: since the basis for islamic nationality is religious, apostacy is considered treason. Finally someone admits it. Brave – and stupid. And what is the penalty for treason? Death, or imprisonment. Islam, as Shurki, appears to be locked into this 7th century thinking. How unforunate. Civilized systems no longer associate religion with nationality, and this is a good thing: it removes compulsion in the maintenance of religious observance, which islam, regrettably, does not. I wouldn’t kill a man for changing his religion; unfortunately, Mohammed would.


    PS: You know, I find the Orwellian character of the Quran most inspiring. BigSleep and Hugh, Linda opined once that we should write a humourous Quran, and I find myself interested. Thoughts on this? It would be most educational to have Mohammed’s words in proper context.

  18. says

    PS: The Ayatollah also believes that having sex with nine-year old girls is deen (acceptable and “good”) in islam.


  19. says

    Amer Taheri charges that the languages of the Islamic world lack a word for “democracy”. The same was said about the peoples of the Far East as well during the period between World War II and the Tiananmen incident. In fact, the word “min zhu” (民主) in Chinese is more “native” than our English “democracy”, which is a direct borrowing from Greek (although, in fact, Chinese adapts and translates the Greek term, too).

    Further, in English, we get the idea wrong. When rule of the many if for the sake the public good, Aristotle called it “polity”; reserving “democracy” for mob rule, or when the franchise is used by people to vote their neighbors’ wealth into their own pockets. So, perhaps Ruhollah Khomeini, that evil old shmo, was not too far wrong when he called “democracy” (at least how Aristotle understood it) to be a form of prostitution.

    It is indeed a failing in Islam that it requires the this-worldly humiliation of the dhimmi. Yet, even the original Athenian polity/democracy could not help but condemn Socrates for questioning its gods and inventing new ones.

  20. says

    I’ll point out again for those who don’t recall or don’t know that I review the previous day’s post to catch up on things written after I leave for the day. Partly i do so as a courtesy to those who bother to respond to my posts, more because i’m curious about other opinions than my own.

    I’ll return in the morning when I have time to pursue the points above relating to my first post here, and as for KJ’s complaints, I can’t find anything I disagree with, nor do I see anything added to the mix. As for the insulting tone, well whatever.

  21. says

    Sina brings to light some excellent points. The bottom line is that as democracy spreads across the globe, yes into the very depths of the so-called Holly Lands. Islam, as the political form of social engineering that it is now known as will deminish.

    Yes vast numbers of people will still hold to archaic Islamic ideals about what God is and how to pray and so on. But those essentricts will be in no position to dominate and dictate to the rest of society how they must live also.

    I Iran today, under some twenty something years of a limited democracy but a form of democracy none the less, adherance to Islamic decrees is dwindelling. Prostatution, and an underground importing of infidel cultures is flourishing. It is estimated that most of the population is now atheist.

    This phenomenon of falling away from Islam will spread to the rest of the Muslim world as well.


  22. says

    “Democracy” or a “representative republic” are meaninglessly free-floating concepts without the foundation of a Bill of Rights.

    Then the mob is restrained from inhuman excesses.

    Sharia is an eternal ‘holy mob rule’, with no human constraint possible, because it was not built-in, being “God’s” ‘perfect’ will. (As written down by fallible humans.)

    I applaud resistence to theocratic tyranny.

    But to continue to argue fine points forever with a mindset that HEARS only what is it ALLOWED TO HEAR by its faith’s audio-‘blinders’ (to mix metaphors) can become a mere time-wasting diversionary tactic —of use only to the despotic dogmatists of Islamic fanaticism for diffusing the energy of its opponents.

    They do not recognize human rule. They do not understand that people are flawed, and CANNOT produce perfect documents of ‘divine’ value. And CANNOT contruct a rule of ‘sacred’ justice on an imperfect planet.

    They are simply delusional about the possible breadth of the human ‘reach’ and thus are tragicomic psychological & philsophical naifs.

    At some point, when they REFUSE to understand the inherent weakeness of our natures, and deny that we ALWAYS exhibit our achilles’ heels when trying to speak about things Greater than ourselves (infinity, eternity, deity, the essential self), YOU HAVE TO STOP PRETENDING THAT YOU ARE SPEAKING WITH HONEST OR INTELLIGENT BEINGS.

    They have a fixed, 7th century set of marching orders.

    Nothing SPOKEN by an honestly disagreeing mind will EVER affect or deflect them.

    But a stronger WILL can.

    Hone that.

    And when they insist that mere humans can produce God’s infallible directives, laughter may be the only

    (It works with overly self-absorbed children.)

  23. says

    “It is estimated that most of the population is now atheist.”

    As much as I would like to believe it, it seems a rather optimistic estimate. Whose is it?

  24. says

    “It is estimated that most of the population is now atheist.”

    As much as I would like to believe it, it seems a rather optimistic estimate. Whose is it?

  25. says

    Re Islamic violence and bigotry –

    Koran 8:7 “Allah wished to confirm the truth by His words: “Wipe the infidels out to the last.'”

    Koran 48:29: “Muhammad is the apostle of Allah. Those who follow him are merciful to one another, but ruthless to unbelievers”

    Koran 8:39 “So, fight them till all opposition ends and the only religion is Islam.”

    Is this wrong? Has it been ‘mistranslated’ or ‘misinterpreted’? We need only look around us to see Muslims following this path everywhere in the world.

    Re Islam’s attitude to women –

    Koran 4:34: “Men are in charge of women … good women are obedient … from those from whom you fear rebellion, admonish them and scourge them. Lo! Allah is ever High Exalted, Great.”

    Koran 4:24: “Married women are forbidden to you except the captives your sword hand possesses.”

    Is this wrong? Has it been ‘mistranslated’ or ‘misinterpreted’? Again, we need only look around us to see Muslims enthusiastically murdering any woman who refuses to obey their loony dictates, or who simply has the misfortune to be raped or otherwise compromised.

    The meaning of these verses is clear to anyone with a high school education.

    So it really doesnt matter how learnedly Muslims discuss the Koran, or how many times they try to tell western countries that we are mistaken in our opinion of Islam.

    While we can still look around us and see Muslims behaving like crazed baboons in every country in the world – save your breath, Muslims and apologists. Maybe the time has come when people prefer to believe their own eyes (and make their judgments accordingly) rather than be insulted by Muslim propaganda supported by head-in-the-sand western governments.

  26. says


    Some may see the Hindu as praying to a statue. WTF do you think the muslims do when they mess around the Kaaba (which they are supposed to do at least once in their life time at least) during the Haj-that activuty considered as a pillar of Islam. isn`t that a black stone, meteorite..

    What about the `stoning of the devil`. What about climbing to the top of minarets and screaming their lungs out so their `deaf` God can hear?

    The Hindu sees his action merely as `focussing` his thots. That doesn`t mean he is praying to the stone.

  27. says

    Damn KJ, that last post was some really MFin’ funny a* * Shi*! What about Tipper Gore, you remember Tipper don’t you. Wife of Al (inventor of the internet) Gore. What about her “crusade” against “Porn Rock” in the 80’s? Hmmm, what about that KJ? Lift your face up out of Karl Marx’s crouch for 5 seconds and look around. Remember Tipper’s book “Raising PG Kids in an X-Rated Society”?

    What’s up with this? Is she some kind of uptight housewife, dominated and sexually abused? How did the music industry ever let this anti sexual lyric bitc* on the national stage? It’s so hilarious that in 2000 she changed her moral tune when the record companies started donating to Al’s campaign. The hypocrisy drips from these fuc**.

    Tipper’s porn rock odyssey began in December 1984, when her then-11-year-old daughter bought pop-star Prince’s “Purple Rain” album. When Tipper listened to the album and heard a song with lyrics about a “girl masturbating with a magazine,” she was aghast.

    She was AGHAST!!! I thought it was only the people on the right that would be AGHAST?

    She went on to fight with Frank Zappa and others, many know the tale, look it up if you don’t know.

    Tipper, is still regarded by many in the record business as being pro-censorship.

    PRO-CENSORSHIP, Oh Wow, that doesn’t fit the program does it KJ? Unless of course it’s sensorship of anything that brings the best out in humanity.

    Just think we almost elected an uptight prude and her lying Al (Earth in the lurch) Gore the Presidency. WTF Earth in the Lurch by Al and parental adversary stickers by Tipper on recordings? Bawhahahaha

  28. says

    The evidence that Islam = fascism is so obvious. This isn’t rocket science — why don’t people recognize it for what it is? Could it be that a majority of Westerners haven’t studied the characteristics of fascism as the study of comparative political systems became passé once the Left took hold of schools and universities?

    An ignorant population is easily manipulated whether here in the West or living under Islam.

  29. says


    Trying to explain the essence of Hindu philosophy to a literal minded muslim, is one example of a totally futile endeavour.

    I hope that someday, Shukri will realise the horror that is islam. He may even become another Ali Sena or Ibn Warraq. The only thing that is stopping many thoughtful muslims from publicly abandoning islam, is fear of murder at the hands of their friends or even relatives. The only “religion” I know that is murderuous on an issue of personal conscience.

  30. says

    It’s time to stop defining Islam as a religion. And, please, I want to hear no more about “the religion of peace.”

    After doing extensive research as to the causes of 9/11, I came to the following conclusion about three years ago: Islam is not a religion. It is not the practice of individual faith. Rather, Islam is a political ideology, an ideology the goal of which is totalitarianism in the GUISE of religion. Therefore, mosques do not merit the protections of the First Amendment.

    You might say, “But what about the moderates?” My assessment is that the militants and the moderates all worship in and attend the same mosque, and the moderates protect the militants. In addition, the moderates are not helping to ferret out and control the militants. I have therefore concluded that the two groups have the same goal (totalitarianim) and that this problem is inherent in the tenets of Islam. Have a look at history. The idea that Islam is tolerant is a myth, and tolerance remains a myth even today in Muslim countries.

    As far as I can tell, the only difference between the militants and the moderates is the preferred method of creating a worldwide caliphate. Militants want to wage open warfare, whereas moderates want to accomplish the goal through peaceful means, which will eventually be tailored to fit sharia law.

    The last sentence of Ali Sina’s article says it all and is well supported by the facts cited earlier in the article.