"The United States invading a number of Muslim countries was believed to have created radical behavior in the Muslim world, the speakers said." -- from this news article
"Radical behavior in the Muslim world" -- i.e., the conduct of Jihad through violent combat, qitaal, or its (for Muslims) perfectly acceptable variant, terrorism (that is, indiscriminate killing of Infidels, especially of civilians) -- was not "created" by the United States. The Jihad through violence predates -- as a doctrine, and as a doctrine put immediately into practice by the earliest Muslims -- the existence of the United States by more than a millennium. It has been conducted in the Middle East, in North Africa, in the Iberian peninsula, in sub-Saharan Africa, in Sassanian Iran, in Hindustan, in parts of East Asia. For a time, when Muslims were defeated in conventional combat (as near Poitiers by Charles Martel), the Jihad then took the form of raiding parties by sea, the destruction of Christian coastal villages, and killing and looting and the seizing of Christians in Western Europe. One to two million were taken back to be enslaved by their Muslim masters. And in Eastern Europe, millions of Slavs were taken, and women from Circassia and Georgia, for the slave-markets and then the harems.
Jihad does not end. There is no, pace the thrusting young academic entrepreneur Noah Feldman, an "After Jihad." Jihad never ended as a doctrine; it merely fell, for a while, into desuetude when the non-Muslim powers -- the Christian powers -- proved too strong, too strong to be fought militarily. But the texts of the Qur'an and Hadith underwent no change. The details of the life of Muhammad, in the Sira, were not changed. No, the only thing that changed was that Muslims could not successfully conduct Jihad against the European powers.
But then, after World War II, things changed for the Camp of Islam. Where, however briefly, European powers had had their writ run, that writ came to an end. Parts of former British-ruled India became Pakistan and Bangladesh. The Dutch East Indies became Indonesia. The French-controlled lands of Morocco and Tunisia (which had French rule for less than a half-century), and finally Algeria (the only Arab country that can be said to have had full-fledged colonial rule for a long period, 130 years), all became independent.
And then came the oil wealth, discovered by Westerners, produced by Westerners, and paid for by Westerners, which since 1973 alone has given the Arab and Muslim states of OPEC ten trillion dollars. They have wasted much of it, in yachts and private 747s and every imaginable vice, and have failed to create -- how can they, given inshallah-fatalism? -- modern economies, but have managed to build palaces and fantasy-lands (including that grotesque hyper-Las-Vegas known as Dubai, where both Iranian and Arab money compete). And of course they have become by far the biggest arms-buyers on the planet, spending hundreds of billions over the past three decades, and then doing one other little thing: spreading Islam, pushing Islam, paying for mosques, madrasas, campaigns of Da'wa, and armies of Western hirelings: diplomats, journalists, former intelligence agents, lawyers to bring suits or defend Muslim clients, academics to make sure that in colleges and universities the Muslim view of Islam is the only view allowed, throttling all attempts to discuss the texts and tenets and attitudes of Islam soberly, without fear or sentimentality. These are all devoted to protecting and promoting Islam or the image of Saudi Arabia and other countries doing Allah's work. Saudi Arabia alone has been estimated to have spent $100 billion on these efforts. Then add in the Emirates, Kuwait, Libya, Iran, and Qatar -- the home of Al-Jazeera, spreading its anti-American, anti-Infidel venom, as well as to an American base that is there only because Qatar, like Kuwait, wants American protection from local bullies such as Iran, a revived Iraq, and even Saudi Arabia itself.
Islamic terrorism and other forms of "radical behavior" come from Islam itself. They come from the texts and the tenets and the attitudes. They come from the rage against Infidels, who are responsible for everything bad in the world, and above all, everything that is not right with Muslims anywhere. Are the leaders of Egypt and Saudi Arabia corrupt? Yes. Blame the Infidels, who "support them." Are the Muslims in Western lands not being allowed, quite at the pace they would wish, to have their every demand for Islam-friendly sites, for prayer rooms in schools and footbaths in public places, for changes in the way people are allowed to dress, for an end to mixed-sex public pools or special Muslim-women-only and Muslim-men-only days, for this and for that, and for that and for this? Then they will demand them all the more insistently, in order that the Infidels will by degrees give in, thinking this or that accommodation is of no great significance -- when it is the accommodation itself to Muslim demands that is the achievement. That accommodation is what is changing the face of Infidel nation-states, and weakening the resolve of their peoples to remain what they are and not to yield. It is all thought out, not spontaneous.
It has all been planned, all been premeditated. Even these demands that seem so innocuous, such as that Congressional resolution to "commend" Muslims for Ramadan. “Well,” Congressmen thought to themselves, "why not? What's the harm in that? Why shouldn't Muslims be ‘commended’ for Ramadan?” But why should they? Is any group "commended" for such an observance? This was a deliberate attempt to inveigle Congressmen into a vote that then, minds being what they are, Congressmen would find themselves, if challenged on it, becoming defensive. They would begin to find reasons to convince themselves why the resolution was a good thing, why they were not wrong to vote for it. And so they have then moved just a bit, just a bit toward the Muslim point of view, even if they didn't give a damn about, and paid no never mind to, that Resolution when it first came up, but merely cast that automatic, timid, and not-quite-innocuous "Yes."
The Jihad -- that "radical behavior" -- is back because it can be. Those OPEC trillions, those millions of Muslims allowed to settle deep within Infidel lands, behind what Muslims themselves are taught to regard as enemy lines, those Western technologies that have made possible, as never before, the spread, to both Muslim and non-Muslim populations, of propaganda on behalf of Islam and the Jihad -- those are the three elements that explain why "radical attitudes," as they are demurely called, are back. Though if the West had been paying attention not merely to Israel, but also to Muslim behavior toward non-Muslims in every land dominated by Muslims, they would have realized, long before now, long before 9/11/2001, that Islamic attitudes never were modified, and the limited improvements in the treatment of non-Muslims that obtained under European rule were often reversed, s-l-o-w-l-y or rapidly -- it hardly matters which. It was happening.
I was just thinking, some scholarly type needs to put together a chronology of Muslim attacks against indigenous peoples in the East and West from the inception of Islam. List every hostile action by Muslims from the very beginning, so the next time someone babbles about about Islam being a "Religion of Peace", one could showcase its antithetical nature against non Muslims. Perhaps one could also include internecine skirmishes among the various sects of Islam too. I'm sure it would be fascinating reading.
Islam is an eternal form of imperialism.
Only by debunking Mohammad and de-sanctifying the Koran's calls to endless warfare with the "unbelievers" can there be an end its aggression.
"Commending" Islam, or having it over for dinner, only encourages its expansion, arrogance and intolerance.
Since it sees all such concessions as surrenders.
Which they are.
Tolerating the intolerant is suicide.
A lesson that will require the removal of more empty heads to finally drive home.
Mister Ghost -
Some material already exists online . . .see
HISTORY OF JIHAD
Then check out this animated map -
History of Religion
The Geography of Faith and it's Wars
Across History
See 5,000 years of religion in 90 seconds
History in a Nutshell
and
Concept Wizards Nutshell 2
The web . . .it's a wonderful tool.
Another list of wars in the Muslim world is at Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_in_the_Muslim_world
It starts with campaigns of Mhummad, blows through the Crusades, and ends with modern wars, there are too many to list. Islam is one war machine, absolutely opposite of their claim to peace. Go figure... ROP has put more people into RIP than any other ethno-socio-religous group of the planet.
Islam didnt catch on until they starting killing and robbing people.
Another list of wars in the Muslim world is at Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_in_the_Muslim_world
It starts with campaigns of Mhummad, blows through the Crusades, and ends with modern wars, there are too many to list. Islam is one war machine, absolutely opposite of their claim to peace. Go figure... ROP has put more people into RIP than any other ethno-socio-religious group of the planet.
Good article...Geo Bush should read it, but I am sure he will not. It might burst the little bubble he has blown around himself and Islam. I am waiting for him to convert. Maybe he already has...
Mister Ghost-
A useful addition to justamomof4's list is:
http://www.prophetofdoom.net/
Islam can either mean "submission" or "thrillkill", depending on whether the aim is inward or outward.
The Bush people are oilmen and the Clintons will take money from anybody. We need a change.
Thanks very much for the Links.
Now, if someone out there can just compilate everything into one website, that would be great.
When I was in school (back in the 1960s and 1970s), we learned almost nothing about the history of Islam and its conquests. It just wasn't part of the curriculum and it still isn't. The result is that most Americans are ignorant about it and that ignorance is exploited by groups such as CAIR, who want to advance the jihad, as well as by people who hate America and who, therefore, willingly overlook the danger that Islam poses to the world as long as it makes the U.S. look bad.
Mister Ghost:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15311&start=0
Interesting - the Jakara Post article seems to have been removed, while other Post articles for that day and the preceding day are still up.
Cached version still out there though:
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:eq_6ToTVS0YJ:www.thejakartapost.com/detailnational.asp%3Ffileid%3D20071003.H04%26irec%3D3+%2B%22%22The+United+States+invading+a+number+of+Muslim+countries%22+%2Bjakarta&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=ca
guru:
You're spamming. Give us evidence.
...spreading Islam, pushing Islam, paying for mosques, madrasas, campaigns of Da'wa . . .these are all devoted to protecting and promoting Islam or the image of Saudi Arabia and other countries doing Allah's work. Saudi Arabia alone has been estimated to have spent $100 billion on these efforts.
....................................
There was a timely segment on Book TV yesterday covering the 1979 occupation and resulting siege of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, and how in its aftermath as a sop to "radicals" the Saudi government rolled back such few modernizations as women broadcasters on Saudi television. The big issue for the West, though, is that much of the widespread funding of madrassas and mosques and especially virulent "Wahabi" translations of the Qu'ran, date from this event.
And yet it is hardly remembered in the West. I was a brand-new college student at the time, and I barely remember it. The West was almost entirely focused on the Iranian hostage crisis.
From Random House's web site: "On November 20, 1979, worldwide attention was focused on Tehran, where the Iranian hostage crisis was entering its third week. The same morning—the first of a new Muslim century—hundreds of gunmen stunned the world by seizing Islam’s holiest shrine, the Grand Mosque in Mecca. Armed with rifles that they had smuggled inside coffins, these men came from more than a dozen countries, launching the first operation of global jihad in modern times. Led by a Saudi preacher named Juhayman al Uteybi, they believed that the Saudi royal family had become a craven servant of American infidels, and sought a return to the glory of uncompromising Islam. With nearly 100,000 worshippers trapped inside the holy compound, Mecca’s bloody siege lasted two weeks, inflaming Muslim rage against the United States and causing hundreds of deaths."
Where does "inflaming Muslim rage against the United States" come into this? The author, Yaroslav Trofimov, seemed extremely knowleable about the event, its effects on the Muslim world and the West, yet even he stumbled here.
An audience member asked why Muslims had blamed America and "Zionists" for both the occupation of the grand Mosque and the resulting siege, he stammered that it was perhaps because the US had initially erroniously thought that the Iranians might have been behind the occupation (of course, we thought that because we knew nothing about the Jihad ideology at the time, and thought of Iran as the only "rogue state" in the region).
Trofimov, as knowlegable as he seems to be, seemed unfamiliar with the idea, as cited above, that "rage against Infidels, who are responsible for everything bad in the world, and above all, everything that is not right with Muslims anywhere." So if the Grand Mosque has been occupied, it must be the infidels, who are always out to defile anything that is holy to Muslims, even though we are hardly aware of such matters most of the time. If there is a siege on the Mosque, it must be backed by the enemies of Islam. If it it found to be other Muslims, as was clearly the case here, then they must have been tricked by Jews and Christians, poor trusting naive souls that they are. If such notions do not suffice, then it is clear that the acts were not carried out by true Muslims, but must have been committed by false Muslims, hypocrites and apostates.
And why, specifically, the United States and the "Zionists"? Because we are the "Uber Infidels", although of course the Danish, or Nigerian Christians, or Egyptian copts will all do in a pinch.
The recent occupation of the Lal Masjid and its siege sounds almost identical to the 1979 incident in Mecca. I'm worried that it might have similar repercussions.
Guru, you might stop comparing body counts a moment and deal with the content of the above "bone", when you say Islam is not going to change I assume that includes the call to Jihad-violence toward unbelievers and the call to subjugate unbelievers until there is no more fitnah in the world. Do you consider these teachings peaceful, for those of us who don't define "peace" as submission to Allah's authority? Do you contend these teachings are being misinterpreted or "hijacked" and if so would you care to elaborate? Do you think the hate "which must stop" and violence "which must go" from the Jihadists has anything to do with Islam? The Qur'an & Sunnah & history & jurisprudence of Islam? With the historic Jihad they see themselves emulating? With Muhammad's call for Islam to conquer the world for Allah?
I know, I know, the Jihad is only a reaction to the "Judeo Christian cabal" but humor us...
People here are not much concerned with your personal faith, non-Muslims are however, forced to be concerned with the Islamic attitude toward them--if Islam is teaching hatred toward them, allowing for violence toward them, mandating their subjugation under the authority of Islam. Do you get it? We'd prefer not to think about you at all, we'd prefer to not have to read your Qur'an & Hadith and listen to your dreary clerics. Live and let live is the code here, but so is don't tread on me.
Today is the anniversary of the Battle of Lepanto, do you think the defenders of Europe and the Faith ('idol worshipping forefathers') were being bigots and haters for doing so?
p.s better stop kicking my dog around
Jihad is self powered looking for justification and co-opting causes it has little interest in.
That's a separate issue. However America's role in the world has been dubious and too self serving for anyone's good.
Notice strong noises about Burma but total silence about despotic regimes like Saudi Arabia. America has no credibility as far as human rights and democracy is concerned, it only pays lip service and uses this against poorer countries for its own self interest, thats the height of greed. Saudi Arabia and the other oil rich countries buying arms is one reason for this so all those billions including the extravagance of sundry sheikhs actually benefits the west.
If America wants to play a positive and credible role in the world they have to become more sincere, less self-serving and cease the blatant hypocrisy.
"despotic regimes like Saudi Arabia"--raulb
What is despotic about Saudi Arabia and why?
And does the guardian of Mecca & Medina have anything in common with "despotic" regimes in the Islamic Republic of Iran or the Islamic Republic of Sudan or with Taliban Afghanistan? Do they all not have one thing in common, attempting to realize the Shari'a? (or is your problem with them their "extravagence" and not Shari'a at all)
Question 2, who do you think has a "credible role in the world" as far as "human rights and democracy" is concerned? Any Muslim nation?
Grand Fenwick, perhaps? No one here regards the Saudis as anything less than the heart of darkness but America is what is has always been, the bulwark of freedom.
Dear Nick
How delightful to have Wahabbi supporter posting on our site - bet you thought it was a JIHAD SITE.
Saudi Arabia is indeed the 'Heart of Darkness' in the 21st Century,a country ruled ABSOLUTELY by luxury loving fat Princes[who enjoy all & more Infidel pleasures] and equally corrupt powerful
Islamic clerics who decree limbs shall be cut off,men beheaded and women stoned for the sins they do themselves-behind closed doors of course!
A country where there is 'Chop Chop Square' with
public barbaric displays every week...A country who has an untold population of slaves & concubines; where minority workers are treated 'like slaves',their passports seized, they work for peanuts, unlucky maids [from Muslim countries] raped,tortured by marvellously
'holy' Saudi males,where sight of a Christian Bible
or CHRISTMAS TREE invokes an immediate beating &
confiscation. Sight of any other Buddhist,Jewish,Hindu etc artifact brings the same response from these lovely CIVILIZED Saudis.
Where unlucky Saudi women [who have no rights] have to dress in black tents -in stifling heat in
case a Saudi Male should see an ANKLE & GO CRAZY
WITH FRENZIED LUST! Wow.
Yes, I was responding to Mr. raulb above.
I guess it doesn't pay to be subtle here.
Mr. raulb who is perhaps a Muslim, called
Saudi Arabia a despotism before launching a diatribe against America. I wanted him to tell
me what it is about Saudi Arabia he considers
"despotic" and whether that despotism might
have something to do with Islam or whether he
was just upset by the extravagence & unIslamic dissolute behavior of the House of Saud not to mention what is seen as harlotry with America.
I've been called a lot of things but this is the first for "Wahabi supporter". Look before you leap, Morgane.
"Islamic terrorism and other forms of "radical behavior" come from Islam itself. They come from the texts and the tenets and the attitudes"....from headline.
"Why Quran is not from God:
Muhammad produced no miracles and when pressed he claimed that his miracle is the Quran. Yet a cursory look at the Quran reveals that this book is full of errors. Quran is replete with scientific heresies, historic blunders, mathematical mistakes, logical absurdities, grammatical errors and ethical fallacies. It is badly compiled and it contradicts itself. There is nothing intelligent in this book let alone miraculous. Muhammad challenged people to produce a “Surah like it” or find an error therein, yet Muslims would kill anyone who dares to criticize it. In such a climate of hypocrisy and violence truth is the first casualty."...from link below.
http://www.apostatesofislam.com/
"radical behavior"??? in the paga...errr, I mean, "mOslem world"???
Isn't that kinda redundant?
lol
justamomof4, thank you so much for all your info..
Because our society is mostly peaceful, we cannot conceive of the hatred of Muslims and their desire to kill us for their god.. It seems strange to us that they want to worship a god who hates so much, but they have been indoctrinated to believe that they are getting rid of the evil in the world, even though many of us have saved them from death they still see us as evil.. And looking at our TV and how many non Muslims act, I can quite understand how they can think that but they have many evil ways also which they don't count as being evil.. it is just as well that we don't start killing them for what we feel that they do evil eh..
In a nutshell...
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/9/24/152943.shtml