In an inexcusable puff piece about alleged "moderate Muslims" in the U.S. in the New York Times, one of them makes a moral equivalency argument between jihad kidnappings and U.S. military action, and another says he would like to see Sharia in the United States -- instituted by peaceful means, of course.
And remember: these are what the New Duranty Times thinks of as "moderates."
"U.S. Muslim Clerics Seek a Modern Middle Ground," from the Times, with thanks to Charles at LGF:
Both men are converts to Islam who spent years in the Middle East and North Africa being mentored by formidable Muslim scholars. They have since become leading intellectual lights for a new generation of American Muslims looking for homegrown leaders who can help them learn how to live their faith without succumbing to American materialism or Islamic extremism....
They haven't succumbed to extremism? Yet at least one asserts that every Muslim holds the same goal as Osama -- the institution of Islamic law over the U.S.? But of course that isn't extremism at all. It's just mainstream Islam, as we have been pointing out again and again here for years now.
Both men draw overflow crowds in theaters, mosques and university auditoriums that seat thousands. Their books and CD's are pored over by young Muslims in study groups. As scholars and proselytizers for of the faith, they have a much higher profile than most imams, as Muslim clerics who are usually in charge of mosques are known. Their message is that both Islam and America have gone seriously astray, and American Muslims have a responsibility to harness their growing numbers and economic power to help set them straight.They say that Islam must be rescued from extremists who selectively cite Islamic scripture to justify terrorism. Though Mr. Yusuf and Mr. Shakir do not denounce particular scholars or schools of thought, their students say the two are challenging the influence of Islam's more reactionary sects, like Wahhabism and Salafism, which has been spread to American mosques and schools by clerics trained in Saudi Arabia. Where Wahhabism and Salafism are often intolerant of other religions — even of other streams within Islam — Mr. Yusuf and Mr. Shakir teach that Islam is open to a diversity of interpretations honed by centuries of scholars.
Mr. Yusuf told the audience in Houston to beware of "fanatics" who pluck Islamic scripture out of context and say, "We're going to tell you what God says on every single issue."
"That's not Islam," Mr. Yusuf said. "That's psychopathy."
He asked the audience to pray for the victims of kidnappers in Iraq, saying that kidnapping is just as bad as American bombings in which the military dismisses the civilians killed as "collateral damage."
"They're both sinister, as far as I'm concerned," he said. "One is efficient, the other is pathetic."...
He said he believed that if more Muslims were schooled in the their faith's diverse intellectual streams and a holistic understanding of their religion, they would not be so susceptible to the Osama bin Ladens who tell them that suicide bombers are martyrs.
"Where you don't have people who have strong intellectual capacity, you get demagoguery," he said.
Here again, we have the assertion that Osama is wrong, but no proof offered -- no arguments from the Qur'an or anything else. I'd like to see Hamza Yusuf make his case before his fellow Muslims. Especially in light of the fact that:
Mr. Yusuf once was a source of the kind of zealous rhetoric he now denounces. He said in 1995 that Judaism was based on the belief that "God has this bias to this small little tribe in the middle of the desert," which makes it "a most racist religion." On September 9, 2001, he said the United States "stands condemned" for invading Muslim lands.He has since changed his tune — not for spin, he says, but on principle. "Our community has failed, and I include myself in that," he told an audience in a downtown theater in Elizabeth, N.J., this year. "When I started speaking in the early 90's, our discourse was not balanced.
"We were focused so often on what was negative about this country," he said. "We ended up alienating some people. I've said some things about other religions that I regret now. I think they were incorrect."
He added, "A tree grows. If you're staying the same, something is wrong. You're not alive."...
But the Qur'an stays the same, Islam stays the same. What does Yusuf think they teach?
He said he still hoped that one day the United States would be a Muslim country ruled by Islamic law, "not by violent means, but by persuasion.""Every Muslim who is honest would say, I would like to see America become a Muslim country," he said. "I think it would help people, and if I didn't believe that, I wouldn't be a Muslim. Because Islam helped me as a person, and it's helped a lot of people in my community."
When I was in college and had some "muslim moderates" as friends, one of them said to me that he wished he were in pakistan. I was shocked and asked him what he was lacking here in India. The mullahs were allowed to howl 'allahu akbar', and they had complete freedom to practice their faith. All he said was that living in an 'islamic' land is different. He is now hardly recognizable. Has a long beard and given up jeans for sacks. Complete with the skull cap. After college, he took up the highly technical occupation of butchery. All that education to be a butcher. So, there go the 'moderate' muslims for me.
It would be racist and intolerant to deny Muslims their divine right to turn the USA and Europe into Muslim lands.
The scary part is that I often hear people in this country making the same sort of moral equivalency statements.
Islam," Mr. Yusuf said. "That's psychopathy."
These words have stood out from the total of what he has said. Again how can any sane person view Islam anyother way, but totally nuts, inhumane, anti
human, anti life. it is a "Death Cult"!
He said he still hoped that one day the United States would be a Muslim country ruled by Islamic law, "not by violent means, but by persuasion."
"Every Muslim who is honest would say, I would like to see America become a Muslim country,"
He is a wuslim. Gentle persuasion....moderate sharia....many uni converts ...and Yusuf is your uncle.
This ofcourse you cannot fight against...only resent.
But I tell you....keeps fridays free. We only work till midday....nothing must come in th eway of prayers.
Why, why, why don't reporters use Google to learn more about the guys they are interviewing? I googled for Zaid Shakir, and found an interview he gave to Bill Moyers on PBS in January 2002--just four years ago:
http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript101_full.html
So this Imam is a peaceful man, but he's honest: Islam has a problem with America, because in America we can pass laws that conflict with sharia.
Give him some credit. He is being more honest about that than nearly all of our elected officials. Bush included.
And for his part, Bill Moyers actually dared to ask the question that almost no one in the MSM, nor any of our elected officials, has dared to ask: "What is it that Allah might find illegitimate about America?" Don't hold your breath waiting for Bush or Hillary or Kerry to ask that question.
Naseem,
you're delightful. I want you to know that I quote you routinely on all the blogs and Internet newsgroups I can. I'm helping to make you famous. Do you know what the American phrase "poster child" means?
The US has spendt years trying to make people equal in a court of law and these people want to throw that out the window and create islamic supremacy and dhimmi's who cannot testify in court in their own defense.
They complain about - God has this bias to this small little tribe in the middle of the desert," which makes it "a most racist religion - but don't see the irony. They say they follow Abraham and the torah and the bible but Mohammad had the same belief that God had a bias to HIS small little tribe in the middle of the desert and that he was the chosen and his followers also. All religions around the world say the same - they are the chosen. They can't see the irony. If you are raised into that is one thing, but to convert?
How can ANYONE convert to insanity on purpose.
Give me violin music, Bernini statues, dogs on my lap, Rembrandt portraits, couples holding hands in public, dancing, joyous voices raised in song, and scientific reasoning.
Keep the islamic supremacists OUT.
And the converts can too.
Steven L. it is interesting to read quotes from this Naseem, who ever he/she maybe. Naseem pops up on the parts that suits his/her. l did not read any post from Naseem over the muslim terrorist cutting off tongues/noses of Hindus in Kasmir. mmm l just shake my head in disbelief that some who thinks islam is going somewhere, and then l feel sad for him/her for being a prisoner in her house.
Can't sleep Naseem, or are you in England visiting university and working on converting your son's girlfriend? Yeah, a little short on the females in Pakistan, need to import some. Yusuf's your uncle...that's Bob, or is that name going to be illegal?
Those guys are wuslims because they would like a peaceful transition.
Maybe they need to read about the peaceful islam in YOUR country.
---
http://www.westernresistance.com
Pakistan: Muslim Clerics Refuse Funeral Rites To Murdered "Blasphemer"
We reported yesterday that a cleric, Hafiz Qamar Javed, was beaten to death by a mob in Bahawalpur state, Pakistan, after he was accused of burning a copy of the Koran. The incident happpened on Thursday (June 15). AFTER he had died from his injuries, police filed charges against him for blasphemy.
Under Pakistan's Penal Code, Article 295-B, desecration of a Koran can lead to life imprisonment. "Defiling, etc, of copy of Holy Quran. Whoever wilfully defiles, damages or desecrates a copy of the Holy Quran or of an extract therefrom or uses it in any derogatory manner or for any unlawful purpose shall be punishable for imprisonment for life."
The law was introduced in 1986 by the Islamist dictator, Zia ul-Haq. The penalty for ridiculing the "prophet" of Islam, under Article 295-C, can be the death sentence.
Following the murder of the Sunni cleric on Thursday, another man, accused of blasphemy was murdered, states Dawn. The man who was killed was on trial at Muzaffargah District and Sessions Court, in Punjab Province. As Abdul Sattar Gopang was being brought into the court compound to attend his trial, two attackers with daggers struck. Gopang was stabbed repeatedly, and had severe injuries. The two policemen who tried to subdue the attackers received knife injuries.
Gopang was taken to Muzaffargarh District Headquarters Hospital, but he died from loss of blood before any medical triage could be given.
The two attackers, Iqbal Ahmad (Muhammad Iqbal Khan, a vendor) and Muhammad Imran (Muhammad Imran Waheed, a student), were arrested. They are from a nearby madrassa in the Shehr Sultan area of Muzaffargarh. Eyewitnesses said that as they were taken into custody, the two men were chanting religious slogans. They were wearing black gloves, police said, to avoid being detected via their fingerprints.
The murder victim, Sattar Gopang, was a tax collector. He had been arrested on March 13, following an argument with a truck driver. Gopang's offence was registered by a member of the extremist Islamist group, the Aalmi Majlis-e-Tahafuz-e-Khatam-e-Nabuwat. This group is well known in Pakistan as exploiting the blasphemy laws to tyrannize civilians. They were behind the blasphemy death penalty issued to Dr Younas Sheikh in 2001. He was subsequently acquitted in November 2003, after spending three years in jail. The Majlis-e-Tahafuz-e-Khatam-e-Nabuwat has also organised demonstrations against the Danish cartoons. The group is opposed to birth control.
According to Maulana Abdul Rasheed, a local office-bearer of the Aalmi Majlis Tahafuz-i-Khatam-i-Nabuat (Majlis-e-Tahafuz-e-Khatam-e-Nabuwat), when Gopang had argued with the truck driver, he had uttered words which blasphemed the prophet, (contravening Article 295-C of the Penal Code).
Today, when it came time for Abdul Sattar Gopang to be buried, he was not allowed the dignity of funeral prayers (Namaz-e-Janaza) led by any Muslim cleric, even though he had not been officially convicted of blasphemy.
The Pakistan Daily Times states that no clerics would lead the funeral prayers, and only 35 people turned up for the funeral, small for a Muslim funeral in Pakistan. The family managed to pay a madrassa teacher to perform the funeral rites, and police were in force to prevent attacks from Muslim extremists.
The Tehrik Khatm-e-Nabuwat (Majlis-e-Tahafuz-e-Khatam-e-Nabuwat) have praised the two killers of Mr Gopang. Maulana Muhammad Siddique, a spokesperson for the group, said: "We will provide full financial and legal support to Waheed and Khan. We are proud of them for accomplishing this noble task."
Gopang's younger brother, Talib Hussain, has also been arrested. He had thrown a brick at Maulana Abdul Rasheed, the man from the Majlis-e-Tahafuz-e-Khatam-e-Nabuwat who had first filed the case against Abdul Sattar Gopang.
The autopsy of Gopang showed he had ten knife wounds, one of which had damaged his heart, causing death.
Today, the District and Sessions Court in Muzaffargarh heard another blasphemy case. Abdul Rehman Fani's lawyer asked that further hearings involved in his case should take place in prison. The murder of Gopang was given as a reason. The case was adjourned until a later date.
The involvement of the extremist Sunni sect, the Majlis-e-Tahafuz-e-Khatam-e-Nabuwat, in bringing the case, and their offer to pay for the defense of the murderers raises questions. Did they commission the assassins? Such a suggestion is not as outlandish as it first appears.
In Bangladesh, a local group connected to this organization is responsible for persecutions against the Ahmadiyya sect. Their attacks have involved extreme violence and a total disregard for secular law. The words "khatme nabuwat" mean "end of prophecy".
In Pakistan the "Tahafuz-e-Khatam-e-Nabuwat" has been active in persecuting the Ahmadiyya sect, which is called "Qadiani" in this country, states an Islamist website.
In January last year, the Islamist opposition coalition, the MMA, accused the American envoy to Pakistan, Ryan C Crocker, of trying to stifle the Majlis-e-Tahafuz-e-Khatam-e-Nabuwat movement. The MMA's leader, Qazi Hussain Ahmed, is an ardent supporter of Osama bin Laden, and has threatened revolution. He also was actively involved in February's anti-cartoon protests.
On March 18 this year, the Majlis-e-Tahafuz-e-Khatam-e-Nabuwat and local clerics forced an Ahmadiyya girl's body to be removed from a Muslim graveyard, 10 days after her death. At the 17-year old's original burial, the local imam refused to give her funeral rites, or Namaz-e-Janaza.
The extreme feelings surrounding "blasphemy" have always been able to invoke extreme violence. We reported earlier that in 2000, Lahore High Court Judge Mr Justice Nazir Akhtar publicly stated that anyone accused of blasphemy should be killed on the spot by Muslims as a religious obligation (swab).
This is not the first time that extrajudicial killings for blasphemy have happened, once legal proceedings have started. A report by CWSA relates how a judge (Arif Ibaql Bhatti) was murdered in October 1997 after he had earlier acquitted Rehmat and Salmat Masih of a blasphemy case. In 1995, the pair were shot outside Lahore High Court in 1995, but survived. Manzoor Masih, also accused of blasphemy, was shot in this incident, but died.
---
Wonder if they found a bit of ground that their bodies couldn't pollute REAL muslims, eh? I'm sure with all the blasphemers that have been murdered the polluters graveyards are getting full.
The PEACEFUL future of any country that accepts islamic supremacy.
Lots to resent. KEEP IT.
And take the converts too. We're sick of their da'wa BS.
Here in Canada it becoming obvious why the mainstream Muslims are attacking Canada as Islamophobic and creating the Brampton-17 ( B-17 bombers) from our isolationists system.
Today we learn that the 15 year old among the 17 was a recent convert to Islam and his Hindu parents were worried about his change of personality that pushed him away from authority figures, but the Police say these thugs have been watched for awhile so that would make him close to 14 when indoctrined with Islam at School and then fully hate filled after conversion to islam.
Toronto has yet to see just one Hindu do treason against Canada or plot a bombing , but in just a few months Muslims lured him to their side and made him a killer that would slaughter his fellow citizens.
It now makes sense why the lawyers are ranting about not getting a fair trial, they are trying to avoid the World seeing how even a Nation like canada has terrorists that have no excuse for rebelion but all are linked to the Quran,Islam,and Muhammed .
This week I posted a update about the parents being tipped off by police to try and sway the youth back before it was too late, now lawyer are portraying the youth as victims or a harmless prank being over blown from Islamophobia.
There is (at the moment) a link to this NYT piece at the Saudi-controlled clipping service
http://www.dammam.com/
It's not a good sign when a piece about Islam wins the approval of the Saud/Wahhab regime.
Islam will never convince anyone with a functioning mind "by persuasion".
What the hell do they have to offer?
Less freedom for half of the human species?
Less freedom of conscience?
Less intellectual freedom?
Less artistic freedom?
Less cultural beauty?
Islam should be retitled:
Is-less.
Less of all of the things that make this life worth living.
Deferring them all to their lascivious parody of "Paradise".
As the super-majority of American will say to these anhedonic cranks:
No thanks.
Mohammad got this same answer from his early attempts at "persuasion" in Mecca.
Which is why he took up the sword.
Luckily, our "swords" are better than Islam's.
If we would only grow the balls to use our power.
Intellectual, satirical and literal.
Naseem.." keep fridays free..we only work until midday."
Work....work? And who among you works?
"Both men are converts to Islam who spent years in the Middle East and North Africa being mentored by formidable Muslim scholars."
Formidable? What an odd word to describe religious scholars. Unless they are Muslim, of course.
It doesn't bother me that they want to make the USA a Muslim country. I am a Catholic, and would love to see the USA a Catholic country.
What I do mind is the fact that many (most?) Muslims want to convert by the sword and compulsion. I would like to see the USA converted by persuasion, freely.
But I tell you....keeps fridays free. We only work till midday....nothing must come in th eway of prayers.
Posted by: Naseem at June 17, 2006 09:58 PM
... and make bombs, and plot terror, and shout 'Death to America!', and shout 'Death to Israel', and distribute beheading videos, and jihadi tapes.... yea, nothing must come in the way of "prayers".
l feel sad for him/her for being a prisoner in her house.
Posted by: Lulu at June 17, 2006 10:56 PM
Lulu, while your heart is in the right place, sympathy for brainwashed Naseems is not only fruitless, but dangerous. God forbid you face Naseem with a knife, you think she will think twice before slitting your infidel throat, as her dark cult commands her? For one who wants to, in this day and age, there are ways and means to liberate oneself. Not only the brainwashed Naseems choose to be where they are, they are Allah's Jihadi soldiers, shoving Islam down your throat and whoever else they have to. Even if the brainwashed soldiers of Allah are victims of the same Allah they serve, sympathy for their ilk is nothing more than misplaced, however well meaning, sympathy. After all, noone is holding a gun to their head, if you know what I mean.
Islam is compatible with working together with decent people at various social, political and cultural levels to make the world a better place for Islam
"He is a wuslim." Very well said. A wussy Muslim, or a Wuslim. Maybe if Wuslims worked a full day Fridays instead of half a day, some Wuslim nations would work their way up to be second class countries instead of the third world piece of feces nations they all are, begging the US and other civilized countries for economic help and sending their children here to get the decent education they cannot get in Wuslim lands.
Arjun, my friend, be glad your old acquaintance at least has a job. He could be unemployed, sitting in a madrassa or a mosque blaming the West for his pitiful state of affairs. This is precisely why Muslim countries revert to living in the squalor of the seventh century, following the example of their illiterate, pedophile false prophet.
Bohemond,
Buddy, I have earlier posted about another of my muslim 'friends'. He chose to be a teacher in a madrasa instead of a decent job. After all the education. WHAT do you do with these people ?
So this Mr Yusuf wants to see Sharia law. As that is the case, it is time to forcibly deport him, and those who think like him to Saudi Arabia where they can get all the Sharia they want.
Lulu says about Naseem "and then l feel sad for him/her for being a prisoner in her house".
Why is it that you want to feel sad or sorry for muslims/wuslims.
Have we aked for it? Those personages who have Allah SWT need fear nor require sympathy.
OFcourse if you have some state aid or grant/low cost housing or a grant to build/extend a masjid...then your sympathy is most welcome.
Serioulsy though for the record...I don't feel trapped in my house. I may fear attacks now & then but that's life (or death).
Alert says "Naseems is not only fruitless, but dangerous. God forbid you face Naseem with a knife, you think she will think twice before slitting your infidel throat, as her dark cult commands her?"
THAT is a propesterios sterptypical infedel thinking. I am Ahmadi....my bit of Islam is entirely peaceful. If you ever come to Pak let me know....I'll show you round Lahore & welcome you (I'm not sure that personages would do that for me in Ameriki) ...in short you can trust me....how many times do I have to say it.
Alert...virtually all of us ask Allah for Dua on a friday....to keep us afloat, forgive our sins, ...to look after our childrens...to keep food on the table...and to fulfil appropriate praise for Allah.
We don't go around planning, plotting, gathering weapons or anything of the sort...like you we are normal personages please ...a little respect won't go a missing.
1069 says "Maybe if Wuslims worked a full day Fridays instead of half a day, some Wuslim nations would work their way up to be second class countries instead of the third world piece of feces nations they all are".
Nothing is more important than to have stong faith...and faith in Allah that is. In a few decades Amekeri too will only work till midday....nuff said.
Ofcourse many peoples are here for the money and the wild slutty womens...but I kid you not many like it here ...it is their home.
Amerike-in germany says "Isn't Naseem a male's name?"
We have been through this many times..please refer to previous posts.
What the USA needs is a RETURN to its strong Jewish/Christian roots and heritage, not get involved with a faith that is alien.
American in Germany a trip round Lahor would be very nice it is a fascinating place but the Muslims are trying to close the factuty of Music and Drama so the lights are definatly dimming over there.
I read that article. At first I wondered if the Times was trying to foist this Moslem as a true "moderate" and portray others as moderates. But here's a few quotes I found significant:
When it came time for questions, one young man stepped to the microphone and asked: "You said we have an obligation to humanity. Did you mean to Muslims, or to everyone?"
.....
Mr. Yusuf once was a source of the kind of zealous rhetoric he now denounces. He said in 1995 that Judaism was based on the belief that "God has this bias to this small little tribe in the middle of the desert," which makes it "a most racist religion." On Sept. 9, 2001, he said the United States "stands condemned" for invading Muslim lands.
He has since changed his tune — not for spin, he says, but on principle. "Our community has failed, and I include myself in that," he told an audience in a downtown theater in Elizabeth, N.J., this year. "When I started speaking in the early 90's, our discourse was not balanced.
***************
And while the Times says he changed his tune, it offers no evidence.
Islamic studies experts say that what Mr. Yusuf and Mr. Shakir are teaching is traditional orthodox Islam, and that it is impossible to characterize their theology as either conservative or liberal. They encourage but do not require women in class to cover their heads. They have hired a female scholar, who teaches only women. Last year, Mr. Shakir published a rebuttal to a group of progressive American Muslims who argue that Islamic law allows women to lead men in prayer.
**********
While leading a mosque in New Haven in 1992, Mr. Shakir wrote a pamphlet that cautioned Muslims not to be co-opted by American politics. He wrote, "Islam presents an absolutist political agenda, or one which doesn't lend itself to compromise, nor to coalition building."
While he did not denounce Muslims who take part in politics, he pointed out the effectiveness of "extrasystemic political action" — like the "armed struggle" that brought about the rule of the Taliban in Afghanistan. A copy of the pamphlet was found in the apartment of a suspect in the first World Trade Center bombing, in 1993. Mr. Shakir says he was questioned by the F.B.I., but had no link to the man, and that was the end of it.
*********
Asked now about his past, he said, "To be perfectly honest, I don't regret anything I've done or said."
************
He said he still hoped that one day the United States would be a Muslim country ruled by Islamic law, "not by violent means, but by persuasion."
"Every Muslim who is honest would say, I would like to see America become a Muslim country," he said.
****************
Some moderate.
Holger Dansker "you are welcome to come to Lahore". Make sure that you eat in "food street", it is a great eat out place.
Seymour Payne...is it really such a big deal if Amrika becomes an Islamic country? I mean it wasn't christian when the indeginous red indian was in charge. The white man cruelly took away his land...introduced him/her to whiskey, syphilis and christianity.
The muslim will introduce you to the Koran, sharia, the jilbab and a better way for you to spend your time on fridays.
Sounds like a better deal for you than you gave to the red indian.
I belive that Moslems are a direct threat to the civilized world and the fewer of them, the better. Certainly it's much better if they are expelled from the West.
I'm confident that Europe will begin expelling the Moslem invaders in the near future, as will the U.S.
So, why not stay in Pakistan where you all can make your own lives miserable, as you have been doing.
Cheers!
"Every American who is honest would say, I would like to see every muslim turned into a pile of bleached-white bones"
Let's get the spelling right to start with there Naseem. America. the third time is suppose to be a charm, but you still can't spell. Geesh!
Seymour says "I'm confident that Europe will begin expelling the Moslem invaders in the near future, as will the U.S".
Reminds me of the Titanic captain saying that "he was confident that the ship cannot sink".
We are not invaders....if I remember rightly we were invited by you to do the jobs that you couldn't be asked to do.
Patroit says "Every American who is honest would say, I would like to see every muslim turned into a pile of bleached-white bones"
I suppose that includes me does it Pait...and here I was thinkung that we were getting along so well.
Actually, I think every American would not say that. A lot of them think that we wuslims do get a raw deal on services offered and politically.
profitsbeard asks: "Islam will never convince anyone with a functioning mind 'by persuasion'. What the hell do they have to offer?"
What they have to offer is: POWER. Power for the currently marginalized, the mediocrities, the failures. Power that will enable them to have their revenge on those who have outperformed them.
Every totalitarian movement has started that way. The Nazi storm troopers were beer-drinking thugs whom Hitler organized. The Communists were rioting mobs whom the Bolsheviks organized. In America in the 1960's, the New Left radicals were a collection of marginalized groups: drug addicts and ghetto blacks and welfare recipients and college students who didn't yet have the right to vote. People who had been left out of the system, left behind by the system, returning to wreak vengeance on the system.
Western democratic capitalism has outperformed the Muslim world scientifically, technologically and economically. In their heart of hearts they know they can never catch up. So they have to destroy that which they cannot compete with.
This new jihad is just the latest of the "Rage against the Machine" movements, going back to the Luddites.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"
This is our most sacred text muslim.....if need be we shall have to meet on the field of battle...
Templar13 asks: "Has anyone in the U.S, U.N or some other well known group thought of making a council to edit the Koran of some of it's (stupid, and Satanic) passages?"
I had a similar idea. In fact, I suggested that Hugh and Robert Spencer work on it themselves. It would finally force them to answer a question they have dodged: Do they really believe that the entire Quran and all of Islam must be tossed out, or if not, then what specifically has to be done to it in order to reform it?
Let them write a proposed draft of "Quran version 2.0." That is, a version of the Quran that continues to include the Five Pillars and donating to charity and pilgrimages to Mecca and so forth, but makes it clear that the only jihad that is acceptable today is a peaceful one.
We are not invaders....if I remember rightly we were invited by you to do the jobs that you couldn't be asked to do.
you a mexican today,naseem?
Actually, I think every American would not say that. A lot of them think that we wuslims do get a raw deal on services offered and politically.
you dont get out much do ya,i dont know anyone who thinks or cares if you "wuslim's" get any kind of services,raw or otherwise.So by being a "wuslim" your now in the west?Whats the matter they try to stone you for being a woman,who had the ba''s to run a bussiness,or did they catch alone in a store with a un-related man?
BIRDDOG~
Naseem chooses to ignore the correct spelling. Most likely as a slap to the US.
What will muslims do to the wonderful statues in Germany and Italy when they get a chance?
http://www.acage.org/news/?day=06182006&id=0003
americaningermany,
naseem is a feminine muslim name.
When it came time for questions, one young man stepped to the microphone and asked: "You said we have an obligation to humanity. Did you mean to Muslims, or to everyone --
Yes, that to me was the most chilling part of the article. Only a Muslim could think this way, and throw open to question 'who is human'.
Nearly as chilling as Canadian Muslims asking an ayatollah in Iraq if they should obey Canadian law.
They keep telling/showing us what they are about.
There are none so bling as those who will not see. Never more true than now.
Silvester: That was the quote which got me as well and perfectly encapsulates the thinking (to stretch the word) of the Moslem mind.
The same way the Moslems were invited in, they can be invited out. Everyone can just recognize it was a big mistake.
The thing that always gets me is how Moslems can revere such a repulsive, evil, and thuggish individual as Mohammed and follow the rantings of that silly book, the Koran.
This "sheik" in the Times article mentioned how he liked the "simplicity" of the faith. Did he like the parts about killing Jews and Christians? That jews were from apes and pigs?
It just amazes me how anyone can read that book and not vomit all over it.
And...wasn't Allah the name of a moon god?
OK Amekei-in-germany.
I never said muslims were/are perfect. In fact I try to keep some of the Koran closed off for me. I know that may sound hypocritical ...but I am comfortable with the Ahmadi intepretation.
I am sorry that your "culture" will be eroding over the next few decades. But so many of the Amekeri are fat dogs without direction....I don't mean to be brutal but needs must.
These peoples really need a bit of disciple and order...Islam for its (handful) of faults is standing by to help...and that is the operative word ...help.
Rather than foolishly fighting it always...why not join in as a wuslim to mould it the way you may want to see it rather than see muslim expansion willy nilly.
YOU can help by picking out the best bits Islam has to offer & integrate it into American lifestyle...this means changing only some of your laws & amending some of the the constitution such that it is good for the Ameriki and the wuslim...i.e. no wholesale changes...
Any why stop there....this model can be taken to other countries ...it is the kind of thing that Dubiya has tried to do in Iraq....but because of the majority of muslims and virtually no wuslims this plan is ahead of its time...with not enough of the right peopls on the ground.
You know it makes sense...so why not have a thaw out of relations and do what is best for all us ...
moderate Islam...moderate sharia ...and good fridays.
Outlaw the practice of Islam in the United States and Europe.
(And New Zealand and Hong Kong and China and Russia and South Korea and Australia and Japan while we are at it.)
Naseem:"The white man cruelly took away his land...introduced him/her to whiskey, syphilis and christianity."
Look, Islam is nothing but an Arab fascist movement cloaked in religious mumbo-jumbo to take in the weak-minded of subdued peoples, such as yourself.
Arab Muslims cruelly took away the lands of "Palestine", Syria, Mesopotamia (destroying the leading Talmudic academies of the day), Egypt (destroying the Great Library of Alexandria), the Mahgreb and Spain from their original inhabitants, subjecting them to apartheid "dhimmi" laws. Few are now left, known as Copts, Assyrians, Maronites, Jews, and Berbers. Some converted to escape the jizya and constant humiliations, some not.
In all, Arabs/Muslims have nothing to be proud of when measured against the European conquerors of the Americas.
The conquests go on today as seen in Darfur, where an Arab Islamic government in Khartoum (supported by bin Laden in a recent missive) is engaged in the ethnic cleansing of black Africans from their lands.
Folks, Naseem has become a troll. She has lost the war here. The responses here proves that no one is interested in Islam have all asked to be left alone. Best thing to do is ignore her and she will have no choice but to stop.
It is perhaps more than some people wish to know about the subject, but the origin of the disease known as "syphilis" may well be (south or central) America, rather than Europe. There are arguments about the historical and archeological evidence for location of origin.
Nevertheless, the whole notion of geographical blame for disease(s) is foolishness. Much like so many of the notions of naseem.
americaningermany,
Do not feel bad. We all blow our tops off. It is not surpising because as I have said, Naseem has become more like a troll and it is turning people who post here off. Had to tell her not to ask me again about wearing a jihab or whatever the garment is called over at DW. Hang in there, you are doing good. Take care.
Arjun my friend, sorry to take so long to reply, been a long weekend here, Father's day today, lots of celebrating, so I hope you will inderstand and please forgive. I agree, what does one do? Look at the case of Mohammed Atta; buy him books and send him to school just so he can blow himself up. Did he really have to get an engineering degree so that he could fly a plane into a building? The Quran warps these people's minds. Instead of getting an education and using it to pull themselves out of poverty, they embrace the teachings of the false prophet Mohammed and sink back into the ignorance and poverty of seventh century islam. Educating Muslims reminds me of a saying we have here in Texas: "Never try to teach a pig to dance. It's a waste of your time and it annoys the pig." Whenever there is an earthquake in Pakistan, or a Tsunami in Asia, who is the first to send aid to the muslim nations? The Western powers. Who has the technology to save their sorry asses? The West. Who sends food when their crops fail? Again, the West. Then as soon as they are on their feet again they blame us for all their problems, spit on us and burn our flags, cars, or whatever they consider to be non-islamic. I say screw em. Next time somebody drops a house on 'em let em stay under it. They say they don't need us? fine. We sure as Hell don't need them, their false prophet, their unholy quran or their fogged up way of life.
Outlaw Islam in the US and Europe . . .
and convert them to Christ.
We inhabit a very different world from muslims. Ours is one of liberty and democracy. We are free to choose our religion and free not to choose one if we so wish. We are also free to live our lives as we see fit. muslims, however, inhabit a world that contrasts sharply with ours... The gall of these neanderthals telling us what's good for us. l much prefer slutty "womens" than muderers, thieves, and rapists.
Your welcome americaningermany. :-)
As I say, the best way to bring heath back to America is to bring it back home to Christ and to the Jewish/Christian heritage and faith roots that made America great. No Islam for America. Never.
I do not understand why anyone would be shocked or distressed by the statement that "every true Muslim would like to see America become a Muslim country". I have heard plenty of Christians assert that every true Christian wants to convert everyone to Christianity. Mormons go one better and convert people who are long dead. So how is this -- as a peaceful and non-coercive goal -- any different? The key, of course, is "peaceful and non-coercive".
Fritz,
The whole issue is what is defined by the term for Muslims, "peaceful and non-coercive" ?
BigCatGirl,
I would say the standard would be the same as for everyone else. I have never particularly minded Christians coming to my door attempting to convert me -- I do not insult them and have, sometimes, taken the time to chat with them. That's the kind of peaceful attempts at conversion I had in mind. Now if you get employers or landlords explaining that you have to become a Christian (or Muslim or whatever) or get fired/evicted then you have definitely upped the ante.
Fritz
Fritz,
What I should have said was with the Muslims, there is two efforts at trying to convert non-Muslims, either peacefully or by force. I honestly do not know or have heard of any Christians doing it that way.
Fritz,
The problem is not just over whether proselytization is peaceful or violent.
Islam does not recognize a separation between "church" and state. The real goal of muslim proseytizers is not to convert individuals, but rather entire societies, into sharia robots, or as some might say, mobots.
Actually, islam is far more a totalitarian political ideology (with religious trappings) than a faith based personal religion, such as modern American Christianity. Comparisons between islam and nazism are more apt than islam and Christianity.
Included in muslim proselytization is a future goal of the elimination of the US Constitution, and the replacement of our political structure with a quranic basis. Most muslims are clever enough to avoid discussing that longer term goal, but occasionally they blunder and are honest.
There are many, many instances in Christian history of conversion by force. I am very glad that has gone out of style.
There are also many instances of Christian fusion of church and state. And a significant number of American denominations explicitly call for increased fusion of churrch and state. I would no more want to live under Pat Robertson's rule that some random Ayatollah's rule, thank you.
In American history, pre-statehood Utah (and the earlier city-state of Nauvoo) combined the two rather seamlessly. Patrick Henry attempted to create a state church in Virginia after the revolution.
I do agree that majority-Muslim societies have a great difficulty in maintaining a secular government in the long run. Turkey has managed it, but only through occassional bouts of military rule. I believe this is due to Islam's bad luck in having a founder who lived to rule -- and so subsequent Muslim societies have a model to yearn to return to. Christianity was spared that legacy by the Romans.
Silvester commented on Canadian Muslims asking an Iraqi imam if they should obey Canadian law.
How is that fundamentally different from the Vatican threatening to deny the sacrament of communion to elected officials who do not vote they way the Vatican wants them to vote on issues such as the legality of abortion?
Fritz,
I'm not Christian. Nor am I a fan of Pat Robertson. Nevertheless, given no other choice, I would much prefer living under the rule of Pat Robertson, than under any ayatollah, or imam, or sharia.
Don't take the following as a personal attack upon you, but rather take it as a personal statement by me, about your above assertion:
I am disgusted when I read such moral equivalency claims which assert interchangeability between Christian clerics and muslim clerics.
Fritz,
Canadian Muslims are asking under what circumstances they can break a law that is in place.
The Vatican is not asking these officials to break any law, just to vote according to Vatican dictates.
I find both situations obnoxious, but if you can't see the difference you're either willfully blind or lack any critical faculties.
MaterialGuy --
I don't think it is possible, on a global basis, to assert or reject "interchangebility" between Christian and Muslim clerics. Those form two very broad (and overlapping) ranges of rationality and reasonableness (from the point of view of a secular guy who want to not have churches forced on him). I would state that most Christian clerics are more likely to, if they had unfettered power to decide such one way or another, let me live in peace and most Islamic clerics would not be so inclined. But both of those are "most", not "all". I think the situation in Islam has been hugely distorted by the firehose of money that oil wealth has funnelled into the Wahabi movement.
It is always goddamn collateral damage... I hate to say this but he is correct there. When the US bombed the Serbs the US apologized for "collateral damage", when the US indiscriminantly kills- it is always unintentional. Some of the things that happen in Iraq are simply mind-boggling. Although terrorists target civilians specifically, the US has unfortunately done this as well although it seems they always cover it up quite well unless it becomes an international incident. On the whole the US may be civilized but when soldiers decide to go on a killing spree or innoncent civilians are bombed instead of military installations the US needs to own up to it. I also wouldn't take the part about Sharia too seriously. Every Muslim wants that. I am also sure any religion would be happy if the majority of their country followed their own religious ideology and with that also its rules. I am sure that Christians would be beside themselves with joy if abortion, gay marriage, or anything else that the Bible does not allow was banned despite the fact that imposing such measures begins one down the path of limiting peoples freedom. However, I am not fool enough to believe that Christians might take over and impose their version of morality on me. Although they may wish to do it but they have no chance because despite having a majority they have been thwarted every time. And then you are telling me that some 3-6 million Muslims can force Sharia on us? I call bull shit.
I also would like to add that Muslims seem to have different interpretations on Sharia some of them very close to today's secular law. It would be interesting to know what the cleric actually believes on that.
Skeptic,
you wrote: "And then you are telling me that some 3-6 million Muslims can force Sharia on us? I call bull shit."
I'm not telling you that. I wrote that sharia is the long term goal. It is not immediately likely to happen in the US, but pay attention to the sentiments of the so-called "Islamic Thinkers Society", and to CAIR as well:
CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper in a 1993 interview with the Minneapolis Star Tribune:
"I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future," Hooper told the Star Tribune.
As for your followup comment about different interpretations of sharia, please share some references of what you mean. There are several major muslim schools of "jurisprudence" which disagree slightly on various details of islam. They do not disagree on its supposed supremacism and the desirability of a world ruled by sharia.
Fritz,
I disagree. Here is your previous assertion of general interchangeability between Christian and muslim clerics, which you expressed as: "There are also many instances of Christian fusion of church and state. And a significant number of American denominations explicitly call for increased fusion of churrch and state. I would no more want to live under Pat Robertson's rule that some random Ayatollah's rule, thank you."
Your later comment: "I don't think it is possible, on a global basis, to assert or reject "interchangebility" between Christian and Muslim clerics" contradicts your own above assertion. Although I expect you could claim that your intended meaning of "global" differs from my intended meaning of "general", I think that would be disingenuous. The point is that there may be a scattering of individual muslim clerics (I'll let you provide them) who are less supremacist than some smattering of Christian clerics, but as you, yourself, wrote, the general rule is "I would state that most Christian clerics are more likely to, if they had unfettered power to decide such one way or another, let me live in peace and most Islamic clerics would not be so inclined."
It is both possible and reasonable to reject your assertions of equivalence. In a way, you do, yourself.
Del --
I guess I wasn't clear... I think I stated a few times that, on average, Christian religious leaders are much more reasonable to a secular guy than Islamic religious leaders. But we are talking about averages, and Christianity has some nasty outliers. And, no, I would not relish living in a state run by Pat Robertson.
There is no equal between the islamic religion and any other religion or secular way of life. If you think that then you need to do alot more reading.
Start with Mr. Spencer's book, Onward Muslim Soldiers.
Read The Legacy of Jihad by Dr. Andrew Bostom.
Read Unveiling Islam by Ergun Caner
Read the Reliance of the Traveler by Al Naqib
Learn about Sharia Law. You think it won't be imposed when a majority is reached? Look to the history of countries that became muslim majority and what happened to them.
http://boston.indymedia.org/newswire/display_any/21475
http://www.islamundressed.com
http://www.faithfreedom.org/gallery.htm
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
Do some reading.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/books/
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Bookstore.htm
Skeptic writes: "When the US bombed the Serbs the US apologized for "collateral damage", when the US indiscriminantly kills- it is always unintentional. Some of the things that happen in Iraq are simply mind-boggling."
I consider your singling out of modern America to be an atrocious example of double standards on your part, as well as betraying a total ignorance of military history on your part. Have you studied the history of any wars prior to 1950? Let me set the record straight:
Accidental civilian casualties have been a part of every major war since total war was reinvented by the major powers in the early 20th century. It was the Italian general, Douhet, not America, who invented the notion of strategic bombing a civilian population to break their will. It was Germany, not the U.S., who torpedoed the Lusitania, killing a thousand civilians on the high seas. It was Germany, not the U.S., who carried out the first strategic bombing of an enemy city (Zeppelins attacked London during World War I). And it was de rigueur for any occupying army to rape the women of the enemy population as spoils of war. Mass rapes of women in occupied countries were commonplace--till recently.
In the modern era, no nation has invested more of its technology and resources to develop precision guided weapons to target the enemy while minimizing collateral damage, than has the United States. We have accomplished technological miracles, destroying individual enemy installations while sparing most (though regrettably not all) of the civilian structures surrounding it. According to Battle Damage Assessments, we now routinely exceed 70% accuracy in our bombing, better than any nation has ever achieved in the entire history of warfare since airplanes were first invented.
But ask yourself: Why does the enemy build military installations in residential neighborhoods? It's because he is evil enough to use thousands of his own citizens as human shields, hoping that will dissuade us from attacking.
May I remind you how strategic bombing was done in World War II? Because precision targeting was impossible (bombs were missing by a country mile or more), the air forces of all nations switched over to area bombing, bombing entire districts in hopes of flattening the strategic targets within. And the civilian casualties were frightful. Total Japanese civilians killed: 672,000 (most of them by conventional incendiary bombs, before the atom-bombings). Total German civilians killed: 780,000.
Do you have any idea what the total combat power of the United States could have done to Iraq, if we had gone all out? We could have sent our bombers roaming all over Baghdad and turned the city into a firestorm comparable to Dresden, and incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians. We did NOT do that. That we did not do that, is a measure of our forbearance and restraint.
We lost more Americans on 9-11 than we did at Pearl Harbor; and the Americans killed on 9-11 were mostly civilians. If we had responded with the same fury that we responded to Pearl Harbor, I daresay that by now, literally MILLIONS of Muslims would have been slaughtered, even without resorting to nuclear weapons. But again, we did not do that.
And finally, the U.S. Government issued strict rules to our troops to keep their hands off the Iraqi women. They are not rape toys for our troops, as was commonplace throughout history. We have not taken revenge for the Iraqi sexual assault on a captured female American soldier (Col. Rhonda Cornum) during the Gulf War, have we?
Instead of whining about the civilians that got killed, try remembering all the civilians the U.S. could have killed--but didn't. This may come as a surprise to you, but with nuclear weapons, the President could obliterate the Muslim world any time he felt it necessary. So a claim that we killed thousands of Muslims is only telling half the story. We've saved the lives of 1.3 billion Muslims, lives that depend on our forbearance and restraint. Otherwise they would be dead by now. Dead.
We are a nation with thousands of nuclear weapons. The entire vaunted Muslim umma, all 1.3 billion of them, are alive only because we Americans have decided to let them live in the interest of decency and humanity. They should remember that and stop trying to provoke us. We could always change our mind. Indeed, the way they are behaving, I'm getting close to that decision point myself.
Steven L.-
Well said.
These old "but look what you did to the Red Indians" type of moral-equivalency routines are getting very lame.
I have close relatives who have roots in several Native America tribes, their great-grandparents having survived the 'Indian Wars' by being deported to Oklahoma. And who have since returned to their ancestral areas, and prosper. Understanding that it was the divisions within their Native Peoples, and the constant warfare among too many tribes, that weakened them enough to be overwhelmed by newcomers, and by those newly-born-on-this-continent, the neo-"native" Americans, who eventually formed the United States.
These survivors are even appreciative that:
A) they weren't simply annihilated, like many victims of Imperialistic Islam (or even the Dutch and English in Tasmania, who killed off every aboriginal person on that island-continent), and:
B) were given "reservations" -as bad as they were- instead of mass graves, and:
C) are now the beneficiaries of a Civilization that has bestowed upon these survivors: modern medicine, science, technology and rational history. Electron microscopes to planetary probes.
Birch bark canoes are picturesque, and moss on a wound is quaint, but most prefer four-wheel drive pick-ups and antibiotics. And favor modern dentistry, performed with antiseptic instruments and novocaine, over the retro joys of a rock chisel aimed at a rotting molar while two strong men restrained you during the noisy 'procedure'.
The idyllic past is a myth. It was a hellhole of pre-psychological superstitions and nightmares of pre-anesthetic surgery.
(Plus, the Native Americans, through tobacco, have probably killed as many or more Europeans -through this stealth chemical warfare- than all of the indigenous peoples lost in the wars of conquest from Cabeza De Vaca to Custer.)
Similarly, several African-American writers have also noted their begrudging asnd ironic gratitude for the fact that their familes' survived the tribulations of slavery in American and are now free in the most progressive and freest nation on Earth, rather than being left to the fates of the Hutus and Tutsis, and dozens of other "tribal conflicts" in the 'old country'.
All nations have mixed and often gruesome records.
But to mistake those countries which correct their failings and continue to progress, with those who enshrine their crimes as 'holy' dogma, is to hand your strongest weapons to the enemy:
your discernment and your will.
I'd rather see them turned into petroleum - maybe by an accelarated fossilization over a few seconds. Then we can stop worrying that each time we fill up our cars, we are either funding the Jihad, or a monomaniac in Caracas. I'd still want alternative fuels developed, so that energy, like air or sand, is abundant worldwide, but at least, the pressure won't be on us to try developing this overnight.
BigCatGirl is right. Read Naseem for entertainment value, and remember, while her opinions may be annoying to us here, they are enlightening to the uninitiated reader who may have a very innocuous opinion of Islam to start with - until he sees the Darth Vader aspect of it multicast with every post of Naseem's.
And avoid visiting Pakistan (or any other Mohammedan shithole), unless it's in an F16, with no plans to land there (something that is worth emulating from the 9/11 hijackers).
Assalamau-Laikum all,
So sorry had to break off to tend to Anwer...he has nodded off at the moment so I'm back.
I'm extremely disappointed with catgirl simply dismissing me as a troll now. This was in response to me telling her that no one from the global south is coming to (the West) to rescue Christianity, and whether she had brought her jilbab yet.
The cat responded by telling me not to ask her that again. While I will respect her wish, I found the whole episode highly amusing.
For I wish she was with me at the womens marathon that took place in Lahore a while back. Lots of womens there told the mullahs and young youths..."we are running (in out salwar kameez..not shorts) ...please preety please do not ask us not to run again"....a bit like cat girl's request.
And so what was the response of these peoples ...running battles with the police, police guarding the whole route and police helicopters looking on photographing & arresting.
Catgirl...hahaha...you are so funni and have got to be kidding...you are way too sensitive and nieve.....WAKE UP GIRL smell your amrikan coffee and mentally toughen up.
Now if the rest of want to listen to her, not converse and form an anti-muslim gentlemen's "agreement" club...go ahead.
BUT....don't be shocked when after you refuse to talk to wuslims...you have to talk to muslims....whose mullahs cannot even speak English...who want to make Amrika's national language Urdu or Arabic....Would that make your day instead?
I much prefer IP's dose of "virtual realism" who says "I'd rather see them (muslims) turned into petroleum - maybe by an accelarated fossilization over a few seconds. Then we can stop worrying that each time we fill up our cars, we are either funding the Jihad, or a monomaniac in Caracas".
By reading this, the wuslim/muslim knows implictly what he/she is up against...knows that the infedel wants complete and utter distruction of him...and Allah will not allow that to happen to his peoples ...nuclear weapons not withstanding.
Even if IP was in complete control of nucleur arsenal, this could not happen.
This advange of the infedel is only going to be there for the next couple of decades...after that...everybody will have them.
So catgirl ...I won't ask you again...I'll let one of those wonderful mullahs "ask" you instead. You maybe 30 years older from today... but "ask" you he will.
NASEEM@
"We are not invaders....if I remember rightly we were invited by you to do the jobs that you couldn't be asked to do."
OK,you were invited, but overstaight your welkcome, so get the f.ck back to your desert,
and take this pedofile prophet with you!
americaningermany,
Had read Naseem's comments and it is a miracle I did not start to chuckle. True you learn from her what non-Muslims are up against. All I say is I do my internet research and what I find backs me up. It just shows it is important to do your research.
Skeptic,
If you were referring to www.secularislam.org, when you wrote above, "I also would like to add that Muslims seem to have different interpretations on Sharia some of them very close to today's secular law.", you have badly misunderstood the intent and standing of secularislam.org.
They are a group of dissenters and apostates from islam.
Beside reading Borg's suggestions (thank you, Borg), I suggest that you carefully read
http://www.secularislam.org/testimonies/index.htm
http://www.secularislam.org/jihad/subjects.htm
I want that Saudi Arabia would be a catholic country, and every catholic would be honest to say that. But of course I want this with freedom of religion and proselitism. And of course without compulstion.
Are you agree muslims?
Who the the hell gives a rat's ass what the Muslims want????
Every sane person on earth wants humanity to be free of this hideous, sinister cult of murder and mayhem and killer-zombies. And the sooner it is gone from our world the better.
Skald:
paganism is as red in the claw as supposedly monotheistic religions (and by the way monotheistic religions DO NOT include Islam).
Human sacrifice evolved out of paganistic pratices. I do not approve of it as it undermines social respect for human life. By the way, Islam evolved from Babylonian paganist practices and at its core is a human sacrifice cult.
I'll pass on paganism, thanks.
At least Judeo-Christian outlaws killings of such a nature. That is worth a lot to me.
You couldn't even impose Urdu on East Pakistan - when you tried, you lost that part of your country for good. Good luck trying to impose it on "Amrika".
Nukes to turn you into petroleum? Do you have a special hadith that says that if Allah's beloved are nuked, they'll end up as petroleum? What happened to all the virgins, er, raisins? Oh, the wonders of hadith science.Naseem, it's sad you women can't run a marathon without police protection. And run in shorts. Is it not hot there?
You women should have kept running. To freedom.
freewoman
Nooooooo!
Since Naseem and her marathon band are in Lahore, freedom for them would be in Amritsar, the Rome of the Sikhs, on the Indian side of the border. The last thing the Sikhs need is more Mohammedans - they did a fine job expelling them in 1947, and they don't need them back.
If they can't fix the shitholes that were created in their name, they need to go under. The rest of the world can't be converted into a dumping ground on their behalf.
It's interesting that what he is saying is little different from what those in the Christian Right have been saying, and no one seems to condemn them for it. A double standard?