Uzbekistan: War on Terror must not be seen as War on Islam

War on terror is war on Islam because it is Islam that has given its followers the permission to wage war and create terror in the hearts of the unbelievers in the name of their blood thirst god allah.

Islam is a diabolic and violent ideology that continues to mass murder non Muslims and has been doing for the past 1400 years.

Hi, I have been reading Jihad watch for a couple of years but this is my first post.

I received the message below via email and I thought I should share it with you.

A German’s View on Islam

This is by far the best explanation of the Muslim terrorist situation I have ever read.

His references to past history are accurate and clear. Not long, easy to understand, and well worth the read.

The author of this email is purported to be Dr. Emanuel Tanay, a well known and well respected psychiatrist.

A German’s View on Islam

A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates.

When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism. ‘Very few people were true Nazis,’ he said, ‘but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen.

Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.’

We are told again and again by ‘experts’ and ‘talking heads’ that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectra of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.

The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history.. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honour-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals.. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers. The hard quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the ‘silent majority,’ is cowed and extraneous. Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant.

China‘s huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.

The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet.

And, who can forget Rwanda , which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were ‘peace loving’?

History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don’t speak up, because like my friend from Germany , they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.

Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late.

As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts; the fanatics who threaten our way of life.
Lastly, anyone who doubts that the issue is serious and just deletes this email without sending it on is contributing to the passivity that allows the problems to expand. So, extend yourself a bit and send this on and on and on! Let us hope that thousands, world wide, read this and think about it, and send it on - before it’s too late.

Emanuel Tanay, M.D.

We need more 'Islamophobia' public awareness in the war on Islamic Jihad, not less.
Know the enemy with cold eyes, hold your fire, but when terrorists in your sights fire at will.

Said he: The minister spoke for promoting the ideology of tolerance, mutual understanding, and cultural diversity.

To be done like this:

Norov pointed out that Uzbek President Islam Karimov had called for the consolidation of the Muslim world to protect Islam from groundless accusations, explain its pure essence to the younger generation, and emphasize its humane and creative nature.

Groundless accusations? Which ones, there are so many.

Pure essence of Islam? Which one is that, there are so many?

Humane nature? Certainly not to Kufrs.

Creative nature? What did Islam ever 'create'?
Nothing physical of much value, and mentally, Allah only created human wreckage.

So yes, explain 'that' to the younger generation,
the older generation is too smart, or to far gone, to buy into your BS...

Just giving the jihaddis another bit of leverage in the war of ideas.

Duh-swami, What you are saying is true up to a point, but not completely. There is much which is beautiful that Muslims have created, and still create. Architecture, art, music, poetry. I was in the Sudan recently and the music, particularly of the Sufis, was glorious. Many Muslims spend their lives around music and art. Islam's appeal is not all gross and moronic (although the Koran is an unedifying, rsther loathsome work). However, no matter what beauty is to be found in Islam, I would prefer that they stay in their own countries.

"...they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun..."

Posted by: Londonstan

"it" has already begun...

Interesting stand from a regime that cracks down on any Mohammedan who shows the slightest signs of piety, such as having a beard

"Speaking at a coordinating ministerial session of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), Uzbek Foreign Minister Vladimir Norov expressed concerns about growing Islamophobia and intolerance in various parts of the world, the Ministry told Interfax on Saturday.

"Uzbekistan has been one of the centers of enlightened Islam for centuries. This is why certain negative interpretations of Islam's historical role and deliberately malicious distortions of historical facts cause our serious concerns," Norov said.

Uzbekistan is categorically against seeing the war on terror transforming into Islamophobia and taking the shape of latent or open confrontation with the Islamic world, he said."
-- from the article above

When a Muslim ruler, of a Muslim-populated land, with its peculiar twentieth-century history tells other Muslim leaders at a conference of Muslim states, that the campaign against terrorism, should not be an excuse for "islamophobia," one has to take apart what is going on here.

First, no Muslim ruler of any Muslim state is going to admit, publicly or privately, that there is something deeply threatening to Infidels in the ideology of Islam. No Muslim ruler is going to publicly honor those previous Muslim rulers who, in the past, precisely because they were not following the rules of Islam, but allowed a certain syncretistic tolerance to affect how they discharged the responsibilities of rule, did -- here and there -- precisely because they were not strict Muslims -- behave more decently toward the non-Muslim subjects they ruled over.

For example, Akbar, who removed the forced payment of the Jizyah from Hindus and other non-Muslims, is as a consequence revered by Hindus, but traditionally reviled by Muslims, who favor the regime of his successor, the famously cruel Aurangzeb (that hasn't stopped a Muslim apologist or two, quite recently, from claiming Akbar as a representative Muslim ruler when he was so unusual, and honored by Hindus for that).

The fact that any Muslim ruler, especially if faced with a domestic terror threat, will continue to deny the essence of the ideology of Islam, and enroll himself in the effort to deny Infidels the right of independent inquiry and judgment on the nature of Islam through incessant use of that bullying word “Islamophobia” (and even in attempting to legislate for the entire world, so that all criticism and attacks on the ideology of Islam, made by non-Muslims no matter how well-informed those critics, and how well-reasoned their criticism and cries of alarm, may be) should not surprise us.

And in the case of Central Asia, the rulers and peoples of those lands may have misinterpreted their own situation. If they were more “tolerant” in much of the last century toward non-Muslims, it is because the Soviet Union had, as part of its general anti-religion campaign, smashed the power of Muslim clergy, had closed down all but a symbolic handful of mosques, and had, most importantly, in the schools conducted a campaign of anti-religion that weakened the hold of Islam, which was identified with a retrograde, pre-modern world. And when some Muslims fought the Soviet authorities – the basmatchi – they were crushed.

In Central Asia, furthermore, many of the groups, or ordy, had a long, pre-Islamic history and historic glory to look back to, out of which to construct a suitable past. And that alternative history is available today, and just as the pre-Islamic past of Persia (Xerxes, Darius, Cyrus) offers an alternative past to Iranians seeking to escape the grip of Islam, the pre-Islamic past of much of Central Asia offers a way out. Furthermore, the Soviet ideological campaign against religion had its effect, and many now call themselves “cultural Muslims” as they laughingly observe their own occasional use of “inshallah.”

Furthremore, there are many non-Muslims who live in several of the five stans –especially in the largest, richest, and most advanced of them, Kazakhstan (in Kazakhstan this includes, among its “nationalities,” Russians, Jews, Koreans, Germans) – and they have equal citizenship.

Those in Central Asia who do not believe in the ideology of Islam, but continue to think that they mustself-identify as “cultural Muslims” might look, rather, both ahead, to a future where identifying with Islam may mean not becoming more like anomalous Dubai (a stop for Central Asians on many air routes), a city that is merely Las Vegas on stilts, but more like Saudi Arabia, or Iran, or any of the other states where Islam rules.

In order to keep people in Central Asia from “reverting” to full-blown Islam, it would be good to constantly point out the ways in which the failures of Islamic societies (political, economic, social, intellectual, and moral) are the result of Islam itself. This does not mean that the experience of other kinds of failure, such as that represented by Soviet Communism, are to be overlooked or forgotten, But the case needs to be spelled out: what is it about Islam that almost always guarantees despotism, that means economic underdevelopment relative to the non-Muslim world (with or without the oil manna from Heaven), that makes women and non-Muslims endure a status that they should not have to endure, that discourages both artistic freedom and the free and skeptical inquiry necessary for science. All of this, if grasped by Infidels, who can confidently explain this and be unafraid to do so, could help prevent any “reversion” to Islam in those parts of Central Asia where fanatical Muslims have so far been kept at bay.

But if you are a “cultural Muslim”living in Samarkand or Bukhara or Tashkent or Astana or Almaty or Atyrau, you should welcome steady criticism of Islam – it may be the only thing that prevents your own country, or region, from being much more thoroughly, and for you dangerously, re-islamized. The Infidels outside are, with their informed criticism of Islam – mislabeled as “Islamophobia” – forcing intelligent Muslims themselves to start looking at Islam, and either to answer the criticisms, or to admit their justice.

But if you are a “cultural Muslim”living in Samarkand or Bukhara or Tashkent or Astana or Almaty or Atyrau, you should welcome steady criticism of Islam – it may be the only thing that prevents your own country, or region, from being much more thoroughly, and for you dangerously, re-islamized.

Imagine that you are a 'cultural Muslim' living in Samarqand - the capital of Tamerlane, whose conquests spanned Moscow to Delhi to Baghdad. You look at him in the same way Mongols look at Chengiz Khan, or Russians look at Tsar Peter the Great. (Strictly speaking, Tamerlane wasn't an ethnic Uzbek - his descendent Babur - the founder of the Moghul empire - fought the Uzbeks under one Shaibani Khan before losing both Samarqand and Ferghana, and being forced to retreat to Kabul, from where he expanded South-Eastwards, and the rest is history.)

So, just as Mongols look to Chengiz for inspiration, and may sometimes ask - What would Chengiz do - in response to any national crisis at a given time, let's say Uzbekistan has to make a decision on how Islamic it wants to be. You are one of those Uzbeks, and you are mulling this over, and you wonder - what did our founder Timur think of this one? You look, and you find - while he didn't invoke Jihad as a pretext for his wars against the Persians, he did invoke it in his massacres of Armenians, Russians and Hindus. In fact, in his memoirs (I forget the name), he gloats about his massacre of Delhi, where while he was waging a war against an intolerant Sultan who wasn't much tolerant of Hindus, he went out of his way to massacre Hindus who had no preference between one Mohammedan ruler or another. Similarly, he wrote about his attempts to convert that Afghan province of Kafirstan - which didn't happen until the 19th century. His last campaign - to China - which was interrupted by his death - was done with the pretext of Islamizing them as well. Imagine what an inspiration that might be for those Uighurs in Xinxiang.

So, Hugh, if you were a proud Uzbek and looking at Tamerlane as one of your heros (face it - there aren't any non-Islamic ones, Uzbeks are a Turkic people and Turks were/are not Mongols), what would you do?

P.S. Note above that while Timur wasn't Uzbek, that hasn't stopped Uzbeks from considering him one of their own. Neither was Timur the founder of the Uzbek people - that credit goes to Mohammed Uzbek Khan, under whom that part of the Golden Horde converted to Islam.

Back to that case I describe above.

"...growing Islamophobia and intolerance in various parts of the world..."
From the article

We would prefer to call it "The Great Awakening" that is occurring as, with each suicide bombing, honor killing and beheading, and destroyed temple, church and hotel, more and more cultures are slowly beginning to regain their lost historical memories of Islamic barbarism.

Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence.
Londonstan

Excellent point!

PG

In regards to the creation of anything beautiful by Muslims, the list would be short indeed.

The Sufi music you mention is far from anything Islamic ... reviled by most Muslims who consider Sufism to be an aberration of the real authentic Islam.

Music - Music is basically forbidden in Islam. "Allah Mighty and Majestic sent me as a guidance and mercy to believers and commanded me to do away with musical instruments ..." - Umdat al-Salik

Islamic architecture - credit goes to Byzantine Churches

Poetry - largely credited to men who "were open Islamic heretics"

Mathematics - India

Art - considering that depictions of living entities are not allowed most you get is vines/calligraphy

"The much-ballyhooed "Golden-Age" of Islamic culture was largely inspired by non-Muslims" - Robert Spencer