Islamic teachers? But, but -- didn't they learn that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance? How could they have missed the Qur'an's calls to universal brotherhood and harmony?
What's that? You say they were incited to violence by the Qur'an itself? What are you, some kind of Islamophobe?
Anyway, this article takes the line that the teachers are being targeted unfairly -- which would be easier to believe were it not for the fact that Islamic clerics from Indonesia to Britain have been on the front lines of the jihad.
From The Star, with thanks to Nicolei:
MORE than 100 religious teachers in southern Thailand have been detained since the bloody incident in Tak Bai, according to Utusan Malaysia.Mohd Zain Daud, a religious teacher, was quoted as saying that since October last year, the teachers had become the targets of arrests by the authorities.
“Things became worse since the introduction of the Emergency Act and more than 100 religious teachers were arrested and questioned over offences which they claimed they did not commit,” said Mohd Zain, from Pattani.
Mohd Zain claimed that the teachers became targets because of their “highly political minds” and ability to influence the Muslim community in demanding their rights from the Thai Government.
“In the eyes of the authorities, religious teachers must be detained to prevent them from influencing Muslims from demanding their rights,” he added.
“In the eyes of the authorities, religious teachers must be detained to prevent them from influencing Muslims from demanding their rights,” he added.
That quote is what is so infuriating about islam: It's members always say something so d*mn cheeky!
Every story about Muslim attacks on Buddhists in Thailand or elsewhere, like the many stories of Muslim murders of Hindu villagers in Pakistan and Kashmir and Bangladesh (in all three, the percentage of Hindus in the population has gone steadily down) and even in India itself, raises the question that the Pilgers and Fisks and Scowcrofts and Brzezinskis can never quite answer: for they have no reply to those who offer up the evidence that Muslims are not making war only on Israel (the Lesser Jihad), nor only on Israel's intermittent and often lukewarm ally, the United States, but against all Infidels.
It is curious that so many people, so quick to deplore the Eurocentric (or Americanocentric) view of the world, as deplorably colonialist or racist or narrow-minded or what-have-you, suddenly become completely ignorant of, or indifferent to, the rest of the world's many victims of Islam. But not only is this unfair to those victims, but it keeps the American Infidels from realizing that the attack on them has little to do with what American policy is -- except insofar as it remains insufficiently appeasing to Muslims -- and rather, is merely a specific case of the general problem.
And that general problem is the one which Samuel Zwemer, the long-time editor of "The Moslem World," brought to his readers' attention when he noted, long before America even knew where the Middle East was, long before the Muslims had acquired their unmerited oil wealth that funds the Jihad, long before millions of Muslims were allowed to settle within Infidel lands, behind enemy lines, long before the rebirth of a Jewish commonwealth now known as Isarel, Samuel Zwemer (d. 1952), an American scholar of Islam, and former editor of Moslem World, wrote the following in 1920 (in "Moslem World," Vol. 10, pp. 154-155.):
“Its [Islam's] intolerance and persecuting spirit have been revealed within the past few years, the blood of a million martyrs testifying to the failure of Islam, its absolute failure to understand the words that open every chapter save one of their Sacred Volume: ‘God the Merciful and Compassionate’. A few years ago one of the leading Moslems of Baghdad wrote an article for a French journal entitled, The Final Word of Islam to Europe : ‘For us in the world there are only believers and unbelievers; love, charity, fraternity toward believers; contempt, disgust, hatred, and war against unbelievers. Amongst the unbelievers the most hateful and criminal are those who, while recognizing God, attribute to Him earthly relationship, give Him a son, a mother. Learn then, European observers, that a Christian of no matter what position, from the simple fact he is a Christian is in our eyes a blind man fallen from all human dignity.’…Can a religion which inculcates such principles make the world safe for democracy?"
"For us there are onlly believers and unbelievers" -- that is the key. That is what the Administration, helping one set of Believers (the Sunnis) against another set of Believers (the Shi'a)-- so singularly fails to understand. It does not want to understand. Like Jack Straw, like Dominique de Villepin, like Javier Solana and Chris Patten, many in this Administration -- and especially, it seems, still ruling the roost in the State Department.
Islam is more than a collection of rituals -- of shehada, zakat, salat, Ramadan, and hajj. It is a Total Regulation of Life, a Complete Explanation of the Universe. And central to Islam, running all through Islam, through the canonical texts of Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira, running through the lives of Muslims, the attitudes and mental makeup of Muslims, the history of Muslim conquest, the history of Muslim subjugation of non-Muslims in those conquered lands, the history of Muslim enslavement of non-Muslim blacks, non-Muslim whites, whether taken in slaving parties in Africa (where black African boys were castrated on the spot), or raiding parties up and down the coasts of Western Europe (see the recent book by Giles Milton on one such victim, Thomas Pellow of Cornwall), or into the lands of the Slavs, or into Circassia and Georgia (both places suppliers of women for the slave-markets of Islam, and the harems of Muslims over many centuries).
And central to Islam above all is that division that Zwemer notes, and that the "Moslem from Baghdad" whose article "The Final World of Islam to Europe" Zwemer quotes, unembarrassedly makes clear:
"For us in the world there are only believers and unbelievers."
That's it. The division of the world, according to the Muslim view, is that between Believers and Infidels. Give the Muslims all the aid -- the disguised jizyah of aid, you want. Give them water-treatment plants. Build them schools and hospitals. Repair power grids. Repair oil fields. Offer tens of billions of dollars in aid. Use up your own political capital to relieve their external debt by one hundred billion. Give the Egyptians several billion a year, and ignore the fact that Egypt has failed to fulfill a single one of its solemn commitments to the Infidel state of Israel under a treaty brokered by, indeed forced down the throat of Israel by, the deplorable Carter and the clueless Brzezinski. Keep up the jizyah to the "Palestinians," the shock-troops of the Lesser Jihad (that against Israel), the earliest key supporters of Khomeini (Arafat and his men were important to the resistible rise of Khomeini. No, the American government, or many people in it, failed to understand two things when they went to Iraq. They failed to understand the history of Iraq itself, and they failed, and continue to fail, to understsand Islam.
That remark by a Muslim -- "For us in the world there are only believers and unbelievers"-- written in 1920, could have been written in 1120, or 1620, or of course, in 2005. Islam is based on immutable texts. Islam does not and cannot change. It can be contained. It can be weakened. It can be demoralized. It can have its own natural divisions exploited. But it cannot change -- or at least no one has yet successfully done so, and many have tried. For how would one change the text of the Qur'an? How would one declare "inauthentic" Hadith that al-Bukhari and Muslim and other muhaddithin had declared "authetnic"? How would one change the facts of Muhamamd's life as detailed in the Sira?
And even if this or that scholar claimed to have done so, would the hundreds of millions of Muslims in the world accept any of it? Why should they? To please those Infidels, those unbelievers against thwom they have been thoroughly brainwashed since birth, in a thousand ways, a brainwashing that never lets up, that does not depend on mosque attendance, but sometimes merely on the fact that one considers onself, calls oneself, a Muslim and a visceral, primordial identification with Islam and with Muslims can suddenly be summoned, in the most unlikely, seemingly westernized, Muslims, from the depths of their beings -- at any moment, set off by any number of things, both "political" and completely personal.
Only those who understand that the division between Infidel and Believer represents, no is, the core of Islam, can conceivably begin to construct policies that make sense, and that do not squander, but husband, resources for a very long campaign -- a campaign not of aggression, but of intelligent self-defense.
5 most dangerous words in the English language with regard to Muslim immigration to the West:
Maybe
they
won't
become
extremists.
"5 most dangerous words in the English language with regard to Muslim immigration to the West:
Maybe
they
won't
become
extremists."
-- from a posting above
"Maybe"? "Peut-etre, mozhet byt', forse? On the basis of a "maybe" the Western world, after all that it has learned so far, and all that it continues to learn, and all that it will be learning, about the nature and history and tenets of Islam, should rely on a "maybe"? Maybe this herd will not contain an animal with Mad Cow Disease, or "maybe" only there will be only one. "Maybe" only 1 out of every 10 Muslims in the West will actively support terrorism, and "only" 2 or 3 out of ten be passive supporters. "Maybe" only 8 out of 10 will, by their presence, by their politics, by the demands they make, by the weight of their activity, by the practice of their taqiyya-and-tu-quoque, by the very affability, geniality, friendliness that continues so long as Islam itself is not attacked, and then an entirely new being, a wounded and enraged creature, can often be observed, when a moment before one had thought one was talking to a thoroughly westernized, thoroughly assimilated and advanced member of the same society, or the same planet.
"Maybe"?
No, those peoples who wish not to succumb through demographic conquest and the aggressive pursuit of Da'wa within Infidel lands, people who have begun to familiarize themselves with Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira (which, after all, cannot continue to have their contents hidden, cannot continue to be presented only in the version that the apologists wish to have presented, with their steady mountebank's patter intended to confuse, to divert attention, to offer in a misleading guise, all those passages in Qur'an, those stories in the Hadith (in the accepted compilations of al-Bukhari and Muslim), all those unpleasant and often horrifying facts (horrifying to Infidels) that the Sira, the sacralized biography, of Muhammad, al-insan al-kamil, uswa hasana (in the Qur'anic phrase), that Model for All Mankind, offers in such abundance.
"Maybe"?
No, we have no desire, no wish, to bet our futures on this "maybe." Especially since the behavior of many Muslims already, wherever they may have originated, and however long they may have remained within the Infidel lands where they have somehow been permitted to settle, to live, to find jobs, yet not to confront or to jettison Islam itself, but permitted to aggressively attempt to continue to hide its nature, and to spread this belief-system that is so inimical to free and skeptical thought, to artistic expression, has been so obviously threatening to Western ways, Western laws and customs, Western mores.
"Maybe"? What Infidel, whatever he know thinks should be done, would in Western Europe now deny that the presence of large numbers of Muslims has created, for Infidels, a world that is far more unpleasant, far more exspensive (the costs of monitoring that Muslim population), and far more more physically dangerous, than it would otherwise be.
And if that presence makes the lives of those Infidels ever more unpleasant, ever more expensive, ever more physically dangerous, than there will be obvious consequences. And since we have no way of distinguishing the true "moderate" Muslim -- i.e., the "Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only" Muslim, from the other kind, and also have no way of guaranteeing that any particular seeming "moderate" Muslim, even if this "moderation" is carefully and not carelessly defined, and even if that "moderation" is in fact real and not feigned, nonetheless the "moderate" Muslim, the indifferent or unobservant Muslim, may still, for all sorts of often quite narrowly personal reasons, undergo a transformation and become an "immoderate" Muslim (think of "Mike" Hawash, that successful Intel engineer, making his way to western China in the weeks after 9/11, in order to join Al Qaeda and the Taliban to fight his fellow Americans). And then there is the problem of the children and grandchildren-- the experience in Europe shows that only a few jettison Islam altogether. Some, less intent on making a living and showing gratitude or at least lying low, find their solace in a more fanatical Islam. This is the well-known "my son the fanatic" problem, which was once merely a funny movie, and turned out to be art anticipating life -- with a murderous vengeance.
"Maybe"?
Risk everything on a "maybe" given all that has happened, and all that we know about the tenets, the attitudes, the atmospherics, of Islam, and about the tremendous sense of loyalty to Islam that Muslims, even those "moderates," immediately feel when they sense any criticism of it?
"Maybe"?
Don't be silly. How stupid do you think we are?
"the teachers had become the targets of arrests by the authorities"
islam itself should be the target, not just the teachers of islam.
"100 religious teachers were arrested and questioned over offences which they claimed they did not commit"
yes but the teachers are complicit. anyone who teaches islam should be regarded as complicit.
"ability to influence the Muslim community in demanding their rights from the Thai Government"
first of all, islam should never be allowed to demand anything from any government. essentially, the "rights" that islam wants is the right to take over your country with all that entails.
“In the eyes of the authorities, religious teachers must be detained to prevent them from influencing Muslims from demanding their rights,” he added.
like, for instance, the "right" to commit terror.
this is why islam should be banned. muslims are under the control of a worldwide satanic cult. muslims will do anything for this cult. that is why we must cut off this cult at it's roots by banning islam itself. muslims in thailand should renounce islam or be deported to an international penal colony for muslims. the troublemakers in the world today are mostly all muslim.
for some reason, islam is being allowed to grow.
at a minimum, islam should be deprived of it's oilfields and all islamic governments replaced.
we should announce to all muslims that "we believe that you could be a nice person but, due to the track record of islam and islam's stated goals of destabilization and conquest, we must politely ask that all muslims hereby renounce islam and integrate into your host country's society or be deported forthwith to destinations undisclosed."
Islam is being allowed to grow because of political correctness and multiculturalism. Both can be fatal.
Hugh, that was another excellent summary. That Imam of Baghdad told Europe that in 1920 and nobody remembers, except you and a few other souls.
I think you ought to do a book review of Tony Blankley's new book The West's Last Chance. He has been writing articles that summarize his positions in the WT.
Pedestrian Infidel
The Pedestrian Infidel Blog