A huge crowd of Malaysian Muslims on Friday burnt a Zionist regime's flag and an effigy of American President George W Bush during protests over Zionists' atrocities in Gaza.The ralliers marched from a mosque after Friday Prayers to the British high commission and then to America's embassy, both in the heart of Kuala Lumpur.
They shouted "Long Live Islam", "Down With 'Israel'" and "Down With Infidels" before setting the Bush effigy and flag on fire in front of America's embassy, which was heavily guarded by Malaysian police and two water cannon trucks. – from this news item
Non-Arab Muslims need to have brought home to them the real nature of Islam as the "Arab National Religion" (as Anwar Shaikh titled one of his books), and to realize that within the universalist claims of Islam is the justification and promotion of the most successful imperialism in history, that of Arab imperialism -- linguistic, cultural, and political -- for which Islam serves as a vehicle.
What do Malaysians have to do with Jews rebuilding their commonwealth on land they scrupulously bought, or inherited (the state and waste lands, which make up nearly 90% of the total)? These are lands that had passed from the Ottomans to the government of Mandatory Palestine, which was set up by the League of Nations for the express purpose of establishing a Jewish National Home -- leading naturally to a state, the state of Israel.
Why are Malaysians agitating on behalf of the local Arabs, who were carefully renamed, after the Six-Day War, the "Palestinian people"? Do the damn research yourself: try to find in any of the U.N. records, or anywhere else, a single mention by a single Arab of the "Palestinian people" before the Six-Day War, and then ask yourself why. And now, why should non-Arab Muslims, the Turks or the Iranians, or for that matter the Malaysians (at least one Malaysian intellectual has complained about the growing arabization of Malaysia), become little Arabs, assuming Arab names or lineages or dress or anything? What an act of self-humiliation, civilizational immolation! Why should this be endured?
And why should non-Arabs upon whom Islam was foisted any longer endure the natural suspicion and hostility that all Muslims will, and rightly, feel from an aroused Infidel world? Why not give up on Islam, the "Arab National Religion," or at least attempt to create a non-Arab version that will throw out all the parts of it (the dhimmi status for non-Muslims, the duty to participate in the Jihad so as conquer Dar al-harb and incorporate it into Dar al-Islam) that were obviously created to justify and promote conquest by the Arabs of richer, more advanced, more settled communities of Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians?
Why should Malaysians agitate for the “Palestinians”? The Malaysians clearly know nothing about the Jewish connection to "Palestine," and nothing about the invention of the "Palestinian people." They do not know that that people was invented so as to exploit the naivete of so many in assuming "hmm, there's 'Palestine' and over here are some people called the 'Palestinian people' so I guess the place must belong to them. Case closed." It is that shallow and that effective.
One can understand why some Arabs who see right through Islam would nonetheless, out of an identification with "Uruba" or "Arabness," and a civilizational piety -- after all, if Islam is not so wonderful, then the value of that Islam as the "gift of the Arabs" to the world is called into question, and so are the givers -- refuse to distance themselves or express to Infidels, or in public at all, their doubts about Islam.
But nothing should stop from criticizing Islam those whose ancestors were converted, either by force or by compulsion of another kind -- that is, by forcing non-Muslims to endure a status of humiliation, degradation, and physical insecurity until, over time, a great many converted. Most of the Muslims in Pakistan and Bangladesh and India itself are surely the descendants of Hindus or in some cases, Buddhists or Jains, who could not stand the oppression inflicted by the Muslim rulers.
"Death to Infidels"? "Death to America"? "Death to Israel"? What puppets of Arab marionettes, reaching and manipulating more than a thousand years beyond the grave, to make these Malaysians dance to an Arab belief-system's tune.
How embarrassed, how humiliated, they should feel, those non-Arab Muslims. Some must.
While the devil plays the fiddle and grins.
To everyone who doesn't yet know, please note:
A little over a month ago, Robert Spencer encouraged all who visit here to sign up for a copy of "the courageous and insightful" Ali Sina's first book (about Islam and the Muslim mind) because signing up will help bring in a top publisher for the book. Sina is an ex-Muslim from Iran and brilliantly devastating in his critique of Islam. To sign up for the book, click here.
If before signing up for Sina's book, you want to see how brilliant and entertaining Sina can be, check out this symposium debate in which Robert Spencer and Ali Sina teamed up together against two Muslim debaters, who never knew what hit them.
Sina's website is faithfreedom.org. According to sitemeter.com, Sina’s site has totaled well over 3 million visitors during the last year.
Re: Fitzgerald: The Malaysians dance, but Arabs call the tune
" Live from Mecca...It's the old time Stockholm Syndrome religion hour with the Reverend Ibrahim Gantry giving this weeks fatwa. This weeks fatwa will be about Submission and not gettin uppity with the masters in Mecca. But first a little gunfire from the Old Time Jihad Choir from the Lynchburg Mosque...(gunfire)...singing What a friend we have in Allah..."
Submission
http://www.aperfectworld.org/cartoons/wifebeater.png
http://www.mental-health-matters.com/articles/article.php?artID=469
Straight from Imperial Mecca..Played on bomb shells with knives...
http://www.hymnsite.com/midifiles/umh52612.mid
What a fiend we have in Allah,
what a pal we have in Mo!
What a burden to carry
everything goes up in smoke!
O what peace we find,
when we blow up a shrine,
all because we carry the Koran.
Next the Old Time Jihad chior will sing Rockets of Ages...
Rockets of Ages, blow up for me,
Let me hide my bomb in thee.....
It is as I have stated time and time again: Palestinians are nothing but a propaganda arm of the Arab-Muslim states. The hate for the Jew festers in the heart of all true Muslims because they are taught this hatred from the first day they hear the words of the Qur'an.
They almost equally hate the infidel -- and that's most of us reading right now.
Hugh is on-point as usual. It's up to the rest of us to quit running from these issues and confront them. Stop allowing people to behave like simpering sheep with their heads-in-the-sand when you bring up the subject of Islam at dinner. Stop allowing people to ignore reality. Shove it in their faces. Scribble-- www.jihadwatch.org -- on the back of a napkin or a business card and stick it in your neighbor's hand, or your boss's or your brother's or your sister's, whoever you find that is still living in Don Quixote-ville.
We are AT WAR, folks!
Savvy?
Mr. Fitzgerald,
Sir, I am not arguing with you. I do not have the calibre and I doubt that anybody who visits this site has.
Conversions to islam by force does not mean that the converts are left just like that. Converts must prove their loyalty to the faith by doing what the faith (koran) orders. I only know about Hindu converts, but the history of forced converts must be uniform, as throughout islamic imperial zone, few rise to embrace their older faith. When Hindus were converted, it was at swordpoint with the lives of their womenfolk in balance. To deny conversion meant that they would be defiled in the worst possible manner (I do believe that there can be manners in this, after I read how they mass raped and tortured and killed. Pregnant women got a universal treatment from muslims. Their wombs were ripped out.) and then tortured to the point when death is the only escape from agony. It is written in a lot of books, sir, I am not magnifying the horror in any way.
The converts had to prove their loyalty by joining the muslim mobs and ESPECIALLY kill those of their own faith, and destroy their own signs of culture, temples, monastaries, libraries. They were made to eat meat during the conversion ceremony, after they had killed an animal the muslim way. This might sound okay to most of us, but for a vegetarian this is a very hard thing to do. Add to it all that they had to adhere to the five times a day 'prayer' ritual and they were completely brainwashed. Like naseem posted yesterday. "It is hard on the first generation, then it is easy" or words to that effect. For subsequent generations, since the atmosphere was present, all the barbaric muslim customs seemed but natural.
The Hindus knew what awaited them if muslims caught hold of them or their loved ones. So after the early invasions around 1200 years back, they killed their womenfolk when defeat seemed apparent, and then went to fight to death. The womenfolk used to immolate themselves than be caught by a muslim crowd. And, poisons (toxins, actually) remain a part of the Hindu household for the past 1000 years.
When one travels to the older cities of India, like Varanasi, one wonders why there are so narrow streets, so little or no gap between the houses. It was because the muslims brought every battle home to not only the ruler's fort, but to the house of all Hindus in the city. The lanes are that narrow so the civilians living in homes could throw boiling oil and small rocks on the invading muslim mobs from their rooftops. The homes have little or no gap in the old cities so the people could jump across. These were the last defences. After these defences, the only escape was death.
This link has quotes from the historian of an early muslim invader.
http://india.indymedia.org/en/2003/03/3571.shtml
arjun.sevak-
It was terrible and India became a death camp. It's hard to understand how Muslims do not feel shame for what happened in India. But the Germans would not feel shame for Nazi atrocities unless they had been bombed into the stone age by US and British bombers and then overun and occupied by the Russians, Americans and British at the end of WW2.
I think a similar fate awaits Saudi Arabia (and much of the Mideast) and that one day (probably within 50 years) Isreal will wield the terrible swift sword of revenge after a failed nuclear attack on Israel. Only then (with Mecca and Medina vaporized and much of the Arab Mideast in ruins) will a kind of deNazification occur in the world of Submission.
Do I desire that this come true? No. But I am realistic about human nature and think that reason will never bring remorse for the crimes that you reference in your comment and in the the link added by you.
arjun.sevak-
"Himself" (aka-Hugh) is a pain-in-the-neck with his knowledge on this issue. It's like bowing to Mecca...and I don't think either of us like to bow. So we will ocassionally have to be defiant and flip him the bird-LOL.
Foehammer,
They made me take my Jihad Watch bumper sticker off my locker at work.
I build and test components for Hellfire. Go figure...
Abscedere:
Then your boss is a fool and a coward. It's as I wrote this morning on my blog; sad to hear my own words already cemented with evidence though.
arjun.sevak:
That was some fascinatinig information you posted about India vs Muslims. Horrible, but still of great interest and use.
That reminds me of a story I heard in a restaurant last night from a man who's friend used to work for an American company digging up oil for the Saudis:
It seems this American went out for a walk one late afternoon and came across a Muslim actually openly having sex with a sheep or goat (I'm not sure which). The American oil worker was so take aback (most sane people would be) that he ran back to his apartment. After some deliberation he figured the only thing to do was to contact the Saudi authorities and report the incident.
Ths Saudis told him to "mind his own business", that a man had the right to have intercourse with anything "under his roof."
It seemed like a completely credible story.
So, I suppose young boys, young girls, sheep, wives, slaves -- it's all the same to Muslim men with an itch. Yes, let's allow more of these people into the West. When the Muslims and the Dutch (some of who now are fighting to legalize pedophilia and public nudity) start cross-breeding, I wouldn't be surprised to see alien creatures spawned. It will be like a scene from 'Rosemary's Baby'.
A non-Arab version of Islam is impossible since to de-Arabize Islam you would have to remove Muhammad. Remove Muhammad and Islam collapses like a house of cards.
The only solution that I see working over the long term would be if they converted to Christianity. This would counter the barbarism of Islam, introduce civilization to peoples that desperately need it, and it would allow them to recover and preserve some of their authentic cultural practices. Why pretend to be an Arab? Seriously. What have they ever done that one should be proud of?
"The only solution that I see working over the long term would be if they converted to Christianity."
-Above
I disagree wholeheartedly. Such notables as Ali Sina or Ibn Warraq did not replace Islam with Christianity, so why should other Moslems have to? You can't see the forest for the trees. Christianity is no less farcical than Islam. The difference is that Christianity is not violent, and modernly, reformed. In that state of reform, it is acceptable to modern man.
Preaching to Moslems about Jesus only reinforces their religiosity as it falls into line with their own belief systems. After all, they believe that Jesus was a prophet. How do you convince someone that prophet # 2 was the last and final one, as opposed to prophet #3 (being the last and final…)? The whole thing is absurd. But don’t get me wrong; I wouldn’t mind seeing many of them convert to Christianity.
"Christianity is no less farcical than Islam. The difference is that Christianity is not violent, and modernly, reformed..."
-- from a posting above
Nonsense. Any intelligent convinced atheist can tell the difference between Islam and any other belief-system called a religion. Compare the "good Christian" who takes Jesus as a model, and takes his Christianity seriously, and the "good Muslim" who takes his Islam seriously, and takes Muhammad as his model. See what Bertrand Russell in his "Unpopular Essays" writes about the totalitarian nature of Islam. Remember Russell -- the celebated atheist, rationalist, author of "Why I Am Not a Christian"?
For the moral and esthetic differences that separate Islam from all the rest, you might start by reading Chateaubriand's "La genie du Christianisme."
You note that you would not mind seeing Muslims convert to Christianity. Presumably by this you implicitly recognize that Christianity is superior to Islam, or at least that it does not represent a mortal threat to you or to other atheists. And it does not. But there is much more to recommend Christianity (or Judaism) to the convinced atheist. Surely part of the appeal of Christianity, like the appeal of Judaism or of Buddhism (if I leave out Hinduism, it is only because it is not a proselytizing religion, and is best thought of as the "Indian national religion" just as Islam is the "Arab national relligion," but Hinduism has never been used to promote or justify conquest of non-Hindus, and Hindus do not attempt by force to impose Hinduism on the rest of the world), comes from elements that have nothing to do with scientific truth or proof.
If you hear that someone who had taken drugs or was an alcoholic, committed criminal acts, could not hold a job, exhibited any of those outward and visible signs of inward mental distress, had "found God" and become a real Christian, what is your reaction? Horror, or hope? I suspect it is the latter, even if you do not share that belief in God and never could. And hope would be the right reaction. What if, however, someone who had taken drugs or was an alcoholic, committed criminal acts etc. etc. had "found Islam"? What would be your reaction then? It would not be hope, it would be horror, and we both know exactly why.
Belief in God may be impossible for you. It's impossible for me. But that doesn't lead to the fallacy of thinking that all religions are created equal, are the same. And Christianity is not "as farcical" as Islam. No sensible atheist, including Bertrand Russell, would ever suggest that.
Arjun, I bow my head before your nation's suffering. I have never realised how "lucky" we Christians were compared to you who are not considered the people of the book. Yesterday all my workmates, one of them Hindu, went outside to commemorate the victims of 7/7 with a 2-minute silence. Our Pakistani colleague DID NOT go out (just like a year ago) - this made me extremely angry again with all this media bullshit (pardon my German) about British Muslims protesting against the atrocities of last year's attack, saying "not in our name!" I have not seen one like this! And the man from my office definitely refused to say so or even show his solidarity with us. Mind you - one of our workmates was killed at King's Cross, and he knew her well. She was a lovely girl, liked by everybody.
The Hindu chap looked very solemn. I exchanged a glance with him and I could bet we thought the same. He is a very young guy, much much younger than myself, but he already understands. We have a common enemy.
Hugh-
I don't like organized religion, but I do believe in a Supreme God Almighty. I hate dogma and the silly notion that God would choose to reveal Himself to only one person. However, it seems to me that the harm that has come from Christianity has occured when believers have not followed the teachings of Jesus-and the harm from Islam has come when Muslims follow the teachings of the Koran. The teachings of Islam are not compatible with the teachings of Jesus.
(BTW, if the Koran is the word of God, how come it attributes beliefs to Jews and Christians that have never been held by Jews or Christians? You (with your knowledge) might write an article on that. I think that should be addressed.)
One other comment. Atheism appears to me a belief that there is no Supreme Intelligence in the Universe. For me, that makes about as much sense as believing that a 747 Jet came together by accident. I think the subtle laws of the Universe tend to indicate that there is something (Supreme Intelligence) rather than nothing. (It's impossible to prove a negative.)
Atheism is a belief-not a fact. Theism is a belief-not a fact. Agnostism (I don't know) makes the most sense re a Supreme Being-especially re a personal God and an afterlife.
However, I believe (on the basis of the laws that govern the physical Universe) that there is a Supreme Being. However, that is my belief-it is not a fact. I don't treat beliefs as fact.
Frank-
How does one tell that such a "Supreme Being" isn't an indifferent (hopefully not hostile) alien, as far advanced from our biological/psychological/intellectual/philosophical state as we are from the Volvox?
To that little globular all-female colony of cells floating in suspension, and doing nothing but producing more Volvoxes, we would be gods of the most unimaginable order.
That we immediately impute the Entire Universe's Absolute, Eternal, Infinite Control to "One Perfect Being" seems a signal failure of imagination.
A 'God' that invents testicular and uterine cancer, spontaneous abortions of a high percentage of all pregancies, the cruelty of animals devouring one another live, and humans torturing and slaughtering each other demonically -over religious minutae, century after unholy century- doesn't speak well of this "Creator"'s foresight, fundamental love or even taste.
That someone like a Christ could rise from this bloody crib of existence, to be as forgiving and compassionate an example as he was, gives me hope for humanity, if not the carange-soaked Creation we rise from.
I feel more that 'God' is the end point of all striving, not its origin.
Meanwhile, a-gnosis'll have to do.
Athiest or not, saying that one cannot prove a negative is not proof in itself. Look at the court system. Theoretically, the defence doesn't have to prove anything, that's the prosecution's job. If you say something exists, the responsibility is on you to prove it, not on me to disprove it. Saying something doesn't exist, on the other hand, is not the same as saying "I'll believe it when I see proof".
Just because one cannot understand something, like the system of physics making up the universe, is not evidence of divine construction, nor is the existance of a self perpetuating system evidence of a lack of outside creation. Both are beliefs. Stridently athiest and zealously religious are two sides of the same coin. Neither side can prove their beliefs and neither side's lack of proof validates the other.
In any case debating non-islamic theology on an anti-jihad site seems like wool-gathering, and I don't think the mohammedans give a rat's ass either way. They believe what they believe in their own way, a way that's a threat to all, regardless of whether or not you believe in no god, one god, a hundred gods, a coyote, grandpa's ghost, or flying saucers waiting to take you to their garden world on your next birthday.
Grr!
For athiest, read atheist.
PIMF
PB-
"Meanwhile, a-gnosis'll have to do." If I understand this as agnosticism-I think you are right.
___
It does appear that nature is competition and reproduction, that nature is more interested in the species than any individual in the species. I walk up my driveway and look at the little trees growing on the sides in the wooded areas-fighting for space-for sunlight-for food. Everywhere the war for life goes foward in nature. Nature is a battlefield. If nature is all that can be said of God then God is cruel. I hope God is more than that-I believe so. But my belief is not a fact.
I wonder more than I know for sure about God.
___
On the matter of beliefs, I think we must (for sanity) believe in some things (for or against) as our facts fade into uncertainty about the Universe. But I think dogma (belief treated as fact) is deadly, whether it is the atheism of the Soviet Union or the religion of Submission (aka Islam) or anything else. Beliefs treated as if they are fact is what I fear. It makes people inhuman.
Once, I asked a Berber how he could adopt the ideology of the Arabs that conquered his people. "Allah willed it," he said.
He had ingested the "logic" of his Moslem Arab superiors.
Eisenhund-
If you make any mistakes in spelling I probably wouldn't know-LOL. I need spell-check. On this matter I "judge not-lest I be judged." I hold no one to standards that I fall short on-LOL.
Foehammer, you talk big talk, how about doing big walk, you, Caroline and the rest of the big talkers.
tens of thousands of right wing, left wing, libertarian dhimmi's, NAZI's and Muslims await you over at Liberty Forum Show us your stuff you all, dive in and do battle with Muslims and Dhimmi's (and BTW, you will find some allies there, dhimmi's and Muslim apologists, who are also "conservative" Christians, especially the Catholics, and who like you have an abiding hatred and disgust of homosexuals, feminists, pro choicers and "liberals", man do they hate liberals, but they still love them Muslims and feel sorry for those "family value" arabs picked on by the "liberal press"
"They made me take my Jihad Watch bumper sticker off my locker at work.
I build and test components for Hellfire. Go figure...
Posted by: Abscedere
Abscedere, are there muslims who 'might be offended' where you work? In a position to sabatoge missle components? That would be extremely foolish.
Abscedere-
In answer to the Jihadwatch censors:
Print this out (BOLD, 38 pt. type or larger):
Then post it on your locker and see if anyone at your test facility can recognize it -without mentally turning it sideways.
If they ask what it is, tell them it was Einstein's last formula.
(It may well be, if we don't get our asses in gear.)
Yes,
Very relevant point again Hugh, it's what I have been saying for years and also reiterated in my last post.
Down on your knees and face the Saudi Hegemon.
Unfortunately, the subtlety of the brainwashing that peoples of lesser developed/educated nations recieve results in the hoodwinking of the [islamist] victims, such that they do not see this bigger picture.
We have to get our message out and start educating these people who are easy prey to this evil menace we all face.
"I leave out Hinduism, it is only because it is not a proselytizing religion, and is best thought of as the "Indian national religion" just as Islam is the "Arab national relligion," but Hinduism has never been used to promote or justify conquest of non-Hindus, and Hindus do not attempt by force to impose Hinduism on the rest of the world"
Hugh,
I am glad you mentioned that Hinduism has never been used as a means of conquest but I disagree with your previous assertion. While it is true that Hinduism gives India its civilization identity and cultural unity, without which India would be just a piece of land with various peoples, Hinduism does not require its other adherents to discard their own culture and adopt the Indian one. The South East Asian builders of Angkor Wat, and the Balinese or Javanese Hindus did not have to discard their customs, their language, or their way of life to become Hindu. Nor, did they have to pretend to be super patriotic Indians in order to prove their Hinduness. Anyone can become a practising Hindu or believe in Hindu philosophies without swearing off alleigance to their own nation or way of life. Therefore, the Indian National Religion is unlike the Arab National Religion in more ways than just non-violence.
It would be more accurate to say that India's national religion is Hinduism but Hinduism is not solely an Indian National Religion.
kafir citizen
That's a good point