Here is what the French should do:

1) A two-state solution is required with the new Republic of Frankenstein perhaps sharing Paris as a capital;

2) In areas where the new Republic of Frankenstein does not encompass all of the Franco-Islamic peoples, the terrrible oppression of the Franco-Islamic people must cease! The Hijab must be allowed; the state must fund Islamic courts to properly administer Sharia Law; they must fund a separate Islamic school system; and, above all, all of the French people must be required to undergo sensitivity training in order to appreciate the beauty of the Islamic faith. How can the French people ever hope to understand the Franco-Islamic people unless all are taught the framework of Islam.

3) The French must tear down the terrible apartment blocks in which they have warehoused the Franco-Islamic people. They must build a proper house for each family. They must give every Franco-Islamic male a proper job which affords each man dignity and respect. The women must be given assistance with their child-rearing.

4)The new Republic of Frankenstein must be immediately given complete sovereignty. The French government should pay for arming and training its security forces. As well, the French government must do its utmost to strengthen the leadership of Frankenstein in order that their security forces can properly patrol and the police the new Republic.

Those who would question the proposals I make above should consider the wise words of Turkish Premier Recep Tayyip Erdogan:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051107/ap_on_re_eu/france_rioting_europe_1

Turkish Premier Recep Tayyip Erdogan said France had ignored Ankara's calls for more tolerance, arguing that France's ban on head scarves in public schools triggered the riots.

"We've always told our friends in Europe that they should not lead to a clash of civilizations in order to prevent such incidents," daily Hurriyet quoted Erdogan as saying during a visit Sunday to Germany.

"We should work for an alliance between civilizations. There is a great duty which falls on the Christian and Muslim world. Europe should have evaluated this," Erdogan said. "We said it. But France did not take it into account. It did not listen to us."

Posted by: Mentat at November 7, 2005 9:49 AM

The press (in this case the AP) bends so far over backwards it is pathetic. Excerpted out of your posted AP story was:

"It was the first time police had been injured by weapons' fire and there were signs that rioters were deliberately seeking out clashes with police, officials said.

Among the injured police, 10 were hurt by youths firing fine-grain birdshot in a late-night clash in the southern Paris suburb of Grigny, national police spokesman Patrick Hamon said. Two were hospitalized, but the injuries were not considered life-threatening. One was wounded in the neck, the other in the legs."

Why do they try so hard not to say SHOTGUN? These "scum" are firing SHOTGUNS AT POLICE but the press can't bring themselves to say it. Instead, they fired "fine-grain birdshot". What was it, a wedding? Was everyone throwing celebratory bird-shot?

Bird-shot is LETHAL within approximately 50 feet, and can cause permanent disfigurement, blindness, etc. at further ranges.

If the French police had fired bird-shot from police shotguns at the scum (instead of the other way around) do you think the word "shotgun" would be missing from the press accounts of the shootings? And, would the story have harped on the "fine-grain birdshot" used? I doubt they would say anything about the ammunition and would rather just harp on "shotgun" fired at the poor disgruntled youth (of undtermined religious affiliation, of course).

Posted by: perpster at November 7, 2005 10:34 AM

So how much do you think Chiraq and company are getting paid from the wahhabi Saudis for the collapse of France?They have to be up to their eyeballs in this , you just don't let your country fall prey to likes of these "misguided" youth, while you have endless meeting after meeting with nothing accomplished.I am really starting to think that the muslim youth are not the only ones well organized and I feel it goes all the way to the top of the french government.

Posted by: bugler at November 7, 2005 10:40 AM

It goes all the way to the top of most of Europe as far as I can work out...

Posted by: Daffersd at November 7, 2005 10:42 AM

Hmmm...
Why are these poor disaffected youth burning churches?

Oh, how silly of me to ask such a question. These fires must have been set by Israelis, who were smuggled in to France by President Bush to make this look like the work of jihadists.

I'm sure that the Main Stream Media and the American Democratic Party will soon lay all of this horror at the feet of Israel and President Bush.

But why France, of all places? France has been a huge opponent of the war on terror. So these youths just couldn't be Moslems who are waging jihad......could they? Not in France, the great lover of Islam.

Seriously, when are our media going to wake up - when Chicago is burning?

Posted by: JohnnyDub at November 7, 2005 10:46 AM

This makes about as much sense as the people who tell me that when I point out the problems in Islamic texts and teachings, I am hurting moderate Muslims -- as if pretending that something is not a problem will make the problem go away, or calling something by its right name is somehow wrong.
Robert at November 7, 2005 09:47 AM

Dear Robert,
You are mutilating Islam by applying “the Principle of Abrogation.” The Principle of Abrogation cannot be applied to the Holy Quran as found with the Muslims today.

You apply the Principle of Abrogation wrongly; mutilate Islam; and then claim that Islam recommends violence. Nothing can be further from the truth. The Verse 256 of Chapter 2 of the Holy Quran must be obeyed by every Muslim.
===
2:256 Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects Evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy handhold that never breaks.
===

Any individual who coerces directly or indirectly a non-Muslim to become a Muslim violates 2:256 and is answerable to God Almighty on the Day of Judgment.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at November 7, 2005 10:51 AM

...as if pretending that something is not a problem will make the problem go away...
Bravo - thanks Robert.

Posted by: Report at November 7, 2005 10:51 AM

On a previous article, I posted that this was more than a riot, it was a rebellion. Maybe I was understating that. With rioting in Denmark, and if I'm reading this right, Belgium and Germany, it's even more than just a rebellion. The Islamic Revolution of Europe had begun. Does anyone in Europe have the grapefruits to stand up and say "It aint gonna happen!"? You decide for yourselves.

Posted by: Balrog at November 7, 2005 10:56 AM

"... I am hurting moderate Muslims -- as if pretending that something is not a problem will make the problem go away, or calling something by its right name is somehow wrong."
-- posted by Robert

How can a Moslem be moderate when the Koran and Sunnah collectively call for permanent war, killing Jews and Christians, racism, sexism, misogyny, lying, stealing, kidnapping, arson, slavery, sex-slavery, discrimination, torture, terror, murder, and genocide?

PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH

Q. How does the Moderate Moslem Man reconcile these elements of Islam?

A. By ignoring them, or by dissembling, or by outright lying, but all the while tolerating them in prayer and in mosque, and in the streets in cases where it benefits the cause.

PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH

Only three types of Moslem are possible:

1) A devout active Moslem, who fights Jihad war as commanded by God, or

2) A devout inactive Moslem, who silently roots for the Jihadist to realize God's violent commandments, or

3) An apostate.

None of these is a Moderate Moslem. And none can be, for God has commanded it so.

Posted by: Chaz MarteL 732 at November 7, 2005 11:01 AM

"Mohideen Ibramsha" said: "You apply the Principle of Abrogation wrongly; mutilate Islam; and then claim that Islam recommends violence. Nothing can be further from the truth. The Verse 256 of Chapter 2 of the Holy Quran must be obeyed by every Muslim."

And just what is "Mohideen Ibramsha" doing to ensure that Islam is not violent? Most likely NOTHING. Islam historically has not, does not, and will not police itself, nor does it take the lead in pursuing Islamic Radicals, which number greater than 200 million worldwide nor does Islam clean up it's own act or image, but rather through psychological intimidation and false accusation and exaggeration, tries to manipulate others into believing there is nothing wrong. "Mohideen Ibramsha" is on this site because this person is worried that all their Islamic beliefs are quickly crumbling under real-world tests. "Mohideen Ibramsha" is both overly defensive and aggressive, characteristics of an Islamist. Islamists cannot stand any criticism of Islam - because it is a frail belief system. Would you Islamists such as "Mohideen Ibramsha" please go find something helpful to do.

Posted by: Report at November 7, 2005 11:08 AM

"Any individual who coerces directly or indirectly a non-Muslim to become a Muslim violates 2:256 and is answerable to God Almighty on the Day of Judgment."
-- from a poster above

I won't even bother to go into the Muslim interpretation of 2:256 which has nothing to do with real freedom of conscience -- either for non-Muslims, or for Muslims who might wish to jettison Islam.

Those who want to read a relevant article, by a Muslim scholar, on the "Muslim" meaning of 2:256 (hint: it is not what the poster so confidently asserts to what he supposes are ignorant Infidels), are invited to go to www.dhimmitude.org, and look around. One can slso find an excellent discussion of 2:256 in "Leaving Islam," a collection of the testimonies of ex-Muslims, edited by Ibn Warraq. See his introductory essay, in which he shows how the very phrase "no compulsion in religion" has been used not to undermine, but to justify, murdering apostates. and also in his "Why I Am Not a Muslim." See also Joseph Schacht on Muslim law, and Bousquet.

Of course there is compulsion in Islam. Muslim jurisprudence justifies, even mandates, execution of Muslims for apostasy. If someone can be put to death for leaving Islam, how can anyone maintain with a straight face tha there "is no ompulsion in religion" according to Islam?

And then, leaving aside those born into Islam and not permitted to escape, on pain of death (remember the brouhaha over Robert Hosseein ne Qambar, in Kuwait about six or seven years ago?) or at the very least, total ostracism, what shall we say of all those lands conquered by small numbers of Muslims, whose non-Muslim peoples, vastly outnumbering their conquerors, were over time islamized. How did it happen? Oh, we know what Muslims will say. They will say the sheer wonderfulness of Islam explains the islamification of Mesopotamia, Syria, Judea, Egypt, Tripolitania, Mauritania (in the Roman toponymnic sense), and then eastward, those Zoroastrians in Sassanian Persia, like the Christians and Jews in the Middle East and North Africa, were just so impressed that they couldn't wait to become Muslims. And ditto with those Hindus too, from whom all those Indian Muslims, and Muslims in Pakistan and Bangladesh, ultimately derive from.

No, there is another explanation as to why the numbers of Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists, and so on went steadily down, and the number of Muslims steadily up. Aside from the initial killinigs, and aside from the immediate mass-conversion of certain groups in this or that town who might have wished to join the winnning side, especially if that winning side was hellbent on destruction and murder (wouldn't you, to save yourself and your family?). But it is the status of "dhimmi" itself, with all the sometimes crushing burden of the jizyah, and the onerousness of everywhere being forced to lead a life of obvious humiliation and degradation, unequal at law, forced to wear distinctive garb or identifying marks (and to put such marks on one's dwelling), unable to use the best means of transportation (no horses allowed), unable to repair old, or build new, houses of non-Muslim worship, unable to marry a Muslim woman without converting, while Muslim men could marry or use as concubines non-Muslim women, and always being fearful of overnight ruin, as when Shah Abbas insisted that in Tabriz all the Armenians and Jews would have to convert to Islam, and as wehn in Grenada, in 1066, every last Jew was murdered because the Muslims resented one court Jew getting a bit too uppity. And the massacres of Copts in Egypt, the terrible treatment meted out to the Zoroastrians (and even in recent decades, as the historian of Zoroastrianism Mary Boyce discovered, little Muslim children in Iran had great fun torturing the dogs of Zoroastrians, for whom dogs are especially signficant).

What, after all, was the institution of the "Dhimmi" if not somthing fiendishly designed to pretend to accomodate other religions, while doing everything possible to make such accommodation painful and taxing, in all senses?

If I tell Muslmis that they are "free to remain Muslims," but that every single Muslim in the Bilad al-kufr will have to be a "Muslim tax" of, say, $100,000 a year for every Muslim man, woman, and child, and that furthermore the tax must be paid in person, where the payer is publicly and deliberately humiliated (Hindus in paying the tax to Muslm masters had to endure being spit upon in their open mouhts) -- and that should even one member of the "Muslim community" fail to pay this reverse-jizyah (to pay for enlarged security services, and monitoring of mosques), all hell might break loose, what would we call that?

Wouldn't that tend to make the practice of Islam just a little less attractive? Wouldn't that help cause people to fall away from Islam and embrace something else? Would that not constitute "compulsion in relgion"?

Of course it would. And the history of Muslim mistreatment both of freethinkers born into Islam, and of the hundreds of milllions of non-Muslims who endured Muslim conquest and rule, and who either died out, or were at some point converted (where did all those Muslims come from, and how did their ranks swell?), makes it clear.

Only a fool would continue to deny it.

Posted by: Hugh at November 7, 2005 11:23 AM

[Associated Press] "Arsonists burned two schools and a bus in the central city of Saint-Etienne and its suburbs, and two people were injured in the bus attack. CHURCHES were set ablaze in northern Lens and southern Sete, he said."

[Washington Times] "About 200 rioters took part in last night's rioting in Grigny, pelting police with stones and bottles and SHOOTING SHOTGUN PELLETES."

[Shooting Shotguns by angry dissafected poor youth is OK because....] "The pellets will not kill a person if fired from a distance, but in some circumstances, they can do serious harm, such as blind someone," said a police spokesman ... While in Colombes, a suburb west of Paris, a BABY was injured by stones ricocheting off a bus under attack." [Ok Kids, play nice!]

...

"Arsonists destroyed more than 3,300 vehicles and dozens of buildings since the unrest began. In an unprecedented show of hostility, gangs of youths yesterday also began increasing their attacks on police, hitting them with everything from rocks to Molotov cocktails. More than 800 people have been arrested, of which 20 have been convicted and sentenced to at least one year in prison. ... "Over the weekend, police also found a gasoline bomb-making workshop in a derelict building"

[And what does the french goverment have to say? Wait for it - wait for it]

"With every passing day, the violence gets worse and we are INCAPABLE of dealing with it," Mr. Carne said. "Morale within the police is at zero, and I am very pessimistic that the situation can be resolved without a major reinforcement of security."

But, maybe, just maybe, some sense is being beat into the govt's heads. The very last line of the article throws a line out to indirecetly suggest, that maybe just maybe, this is an insurgency of the Islamic kind [peace be upon Mohammed's camel and all that shit]: "Reuters news agency quoted authorities saying drug traffickers and Islamist militants were also using the Internet to organize the unrest."

Posted by: MikeMontana at November 7, 2005 11:26 AM

2:256 Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects Evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy handhold that never breaks.

Classic taqiyya. There is no compulsion in religion, agreed. Under shari'a there is only compulsion in living in dhimmitude as socially, economically and politically debilitated second class citizens for Christians and Jews (ahl i-kitab), conversion to Islam or death for all others. To Hindus, Buddhists, et al: you are not compelled to convert to Islam. You may die or be sold into chattel slavery instead. But otherwise there is "no compulsion in religion."

Mohideen Ibramsha: You and your fellow would-be mujahedeen are going to find that you are way over your heads in the big leagues here at JW/DW. So I suggest you take your primative lies elsewhere in your quest for naieve kuffar. We know your game and many of us here at JW/DW have studied your playbook cover-to-cover.

Posted by: Hulegu Khan at November 7, 2005 11:28 AM

"Mohideen" knows very well what he is up against here at JW/DW, and yet he pops up whenever he suspects some might still be appeased, in some cases remain doubtful, instead of becoming openly hostile and ready for action against the cult.

What "Mohideen" posts are deflection and obfuscation.

In some cases, like when he posted latitudes and longitudes about the "Arabian Peninsular"- he really let the cat out of the sack, just like Ahmadijad with "wiping" Israel from the face of the earth.

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at November 7, 2005 11:38 AM

Jizya is collected in place of Zakat. Zakat is paid by the Muslims who wage war to protect the non-Muslims under their care.

In contrast, the dhimmi does not participate in war and pays a small amount in place of zakat. If a dhimmi participates in war, then he does not pay the jizya.

The jizya cannot be set at a level as to cause indirect compulsion. If we are interested in a peaceful future, instead of harping on the wrongs of some in the past -- unverifiable wrongs of the past -- we should encourage every one, in particular the likes of Hugh to understand Islam in its proper perspective and help the peace-loving Muslims.

Quoting exactly the words of terrorists and claiming that Islam incites violence does not help.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at November 7, 2005 11:38 AM

The price of real estate, of the kind favored by foreigners in Toujours-Provence country, is likely to go down. And so will prices elsewhere, in all the cities that rely on foreign tourists, foreign interests. Some countries can withstand certain changes in their image. France, or its tourism-related industries, can't. This is not all that will happen.

Posted by: Hugh at November 7, 2005 11:46 AM

Shotguns are lethal, (Duh)
http://www.alpharubicon.com/leo/shotgunpace.htm

Posted by: Carolyn2 at November 7, 2005 12:01 PM

Mohideen Ibramsha, If we believe you and play nice, what will that accomplish? I'll tell you. We would live under the heel of islam within 20 years, tops. None of us that frequent JW/DW are going to allow that to happen. Can you give us any evidence that islam is not imperialistic? Who are we going to believe, you or our lying eyes?

Posted by: Carolyn2 at November 7, 2005 12:09 PM

"Mohideen" sez:

"Zakat is paid by the Muslims who wage war to protect the non-Muslims under their care."

Why would Muslims 'wage war' Mohdideen? I thought they were 'peaceful?!'

And why would the non-muslims 'under their care' need to be protected by war?

Some rather bizarre stuff you are peddling here! I can't think of anyone who would want to be "under the care" of Muhammedans, do you?

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at November 7, 2005 12:28 PM

In some cases, like when he posted latitudes and longitudes about the "Arabian Peninsular"- he really let the cat out of the sack, just like Ahmadijad with "wiping" Israel from the face of the earth.
sheik yer'mami at November 7, 2005 11:38 AM

The condition that there would be Islam alone in the Arabian Peninsula was imposed by Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. The definition of ‘Peninsula’ does not change. If the landscape changes over time, changing the boundaries of the Arabian Peninsula, the statement made by Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, regarding the Arabian Peninsula applies on the redefined Arabian Peninsula.

From http://ce.eng.usf.edu/pharos/wonders/Modern/suezcanal.html we find:
===
The idea of a canal linking the Mediterranean to the Red Sea dates back to ancient times. Unlike the modern Canal, earlier ones linked the Red Sea to the Nile, therefore forcing the ships to sail along the River on their journey from Europe to India.
…
It was Napoleon's engineers who, around 1800 AD, revived the idea of a shorter trade route to India via a Suez Canal. However, the calculation carried out by the French engineers showed a difference in level of 10 meters between both seas. If constructed under such circumstances, a large land area would be flooded. Later, the calculations showed to be wrong, and the final attempt to dig the Canal was undertaken by former French Consul in Cairo and famous Canal digger Ferdinand de Lesseps. He was granted a "firman" or decree by the khedive Said of Egypt to run the Canal for 99 years after completion.
===

The two seas were united very recently. The joining of the two seas changed the landscape and the definition of the Arabian Peninsula. What was done by me earlier was simply to apply the statement of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, to the current Arabian Peninsula.

There was no cat or sack or letting the cat out of the sack. The International community is free to close the current link between the two seas by dumping earth on the canal and bridge the Sinai to the African continent. Revert to the travel through the Nile River and then the Arabian Peninsula changes. You regain your ‘Holy Land.’ Choice is yours: Suez Canal or the Holy Land.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at November 7, 2005 12:50 PM

Why would Muslims 'wage war' Mohdideen? I thought they were 'peaceful?!'
sheik yer'mami at November 7, 2005 12:28 PM

Jihad is waged to protect the Muslim land when it is attacked by the enemies of Islam. Then, the Muslims wage Jihad to protect the Muslim land, even if it happens to be occupied by dhimmies alone. Peace by necessity requires a war of defense when attacked. No society can remain silent and perish when attacked by its enemies. So, Muslims wage Jihad when attacked.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at November 7, 2005 12:55 PM

Mohideen,

Your "theology" is utter bollocks! I would rather be beheaded than listen to any more of your "reasoning".

Beware of false prophets - especially if they are barking mad.

Posted by: 1630r at November 7, 2005 1:47 PM

Mohideen:

You state"Jihad is waged to protect Muslim land when attacked by enemies of Islam"

Is that why the Muslims conquered Constantinople, the center of Eastern Christianity? It wasn't Muslim land until they slaughtered the Christians and made it Muslim.

Posted by: GFB at November 7, 2005 1:48 PM

Whilst deploring the violence and terror (favourite tactics of Holy Warriors) in these places, the enemies of the Civilized World are doing us all a favour. They are showing themselves and their Intent, writing it in blood, fire and destruction so all Europe shall know the fate of Non Muslims if Islam prevails! Of course Chirac is up to his corrupt neck in this - predict he will fall along with his greedy self seeking minions who sold out France long ago to bribes from Saudi Mates. Brigitte
Bardot, reviled by 'Multicultural Experts' of the Left and 'moderate Muslims e.g. Tariq Ramadan' has been proved 'RIGHT' and much sooner than anyone would have thought...
Regards to Granny Weatherwax.

Posted by: Morgane at November 7, 2005 2:00 PM

.
.
The idea that the jizya is merely a replacement for the Zakat is absurd on the face of it. Firstly not every muslim was required to pay it, only free muslims with a certain amount of wealth (the zakat is a 2,5% tax). Secondly, the hated jizya was collected to pay for military and political expences in the ongoing wars of the islamic empires, which means that the taxation of the dhimmis was used to conquer and subjugate even more people.
The whole point of 'empire' is to collect tribute from conquered people to finance the metropolis and to further expansion. If bounty and tribute was no greater than the already miniscule zakat, the Arab expansion simply would have grounded to a halt.
.
.

Posted by: hasselbaink at November 7, 2005 2:00 PM

Mohideen, you said "Muslims wage Jihad when attacked." Pray tell how these French lads were attacked? Was it by the free health care, the free education, the $1,200 a month the French government assaulted them with? The two who were running from the police should not have run if they were innocent. The mob that threw rocks at the French paramedics may have inadvertantly caused the death of the 2. If the medics had been allowed to do their job, they might have lived. Islam is spread by jihad and has always been. How many military attacks did Mohammed lead? How many did he direct? We are tired of Muslim lies, taqiyyah, deceit, murder and terrorism, then having to listen to them whine about how Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance. Stick a croissant in it.

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at November 7, 2005 2:45 PM

The jizya was always many more times that of the tax imposed on Muslims (zakat). Here is the truth about jizya: The truth about jizya

I suggest to Mohideen that you take your lies elsewhere.

Posted by: Hulegu Khan at November 7, 2005 2:55 PM

The jizya was always many more times that of the tax imposed on Muslims (zakat). Here is the truth about jizya: The truth about jizya
Hulegu Khan at November 7, 2005 02:55 PM

The link given above is: http://www.bharatvani.org/books/jihad/app2.htm In this document, we find:
===
why should the Islamic state be so hard upon its own people while it showers so much benevolence on the accursed infidels? Muslim historians have never attempted to answer this straightforward question.
===

The answer is simple and straight forward. A Muslim lives in this world to gain a happy life in the Hereafter. The Zakat is collected from the Muslims at a rate of 20% of booty; 20% of agricultural yield from rain-fed land; 10% of agricultural yield of irrigated land; and 2.5% of wealth. All these high rates of taxation is to purify the wealth. As regards a non-Muslim is concerned, his / her lack of faith denies her / him the Hereafter and thus there is no question of purifying the wealth of a non-Muslim. Thus, the Jizya is a token charge towards the exemption from military duty.

We find the following also:
===
the Jews of Khaibar were the first people to be treated as kharãjguzãrs, that is to say, the payers of the poll-tax. But the tax imposed on these people consisted in leaving them as tenants in their own lands - the rate of taxation, according to Sir William Muir, being half the produce of these lands.
===

The Jews were allowed to cultivate the lands instead of being expelled; they were the first to perform ‘share-cropping.’ Under ‘share-cropping’ the owner of the land gets half the yield and the cropper takes the other half. It has nothing to do with Jizya.

May I suggest that the interested please read the Holy Quran and the Traditions (an excellent source is the ALIM CD) and try to understand the ‘Religion of Peace’ rather than quoting non-Muslims and claiming that the word of the non-Muslim is binding on Islam?

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at November 7, 2005 4:22 PM

The French must not divide their country into two camps. Muslims are immigrants. Immigrants must integrate. Send them packing if they can't.

Posted by: epg at November 7, 2005 4:30 PM

Mohideen, so a tax of 52.5% is fair? Remember they were publicly beaten while paying the jizya, and don't forget that they were not allowed to build or repair churches or synogogues, could not ring church bells or pray or recite mass aloud, had to wear clothing that distinguished them from Muslims, were not allowed to greet anyone with the Muslim "Peace of Allah be with you / Ah sallam allah akum", could not ride horses or camels, had to pass on the unclean side of a Muslim in the street, were forbidden to have houses larger than a Muslim's, had to remove their headgear and stand in the presence of a Muslim, were forbidden to defend themselves against a Muslim should they be attacked, could not own a weapon, and had their children snatched away to become Janassaries for the Muslim armies.

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at November 7, 2005 4:41 PM

Pray tell how these French lads were attacked? Was it by the free health care, the free education, the $1,200 a month the French government assaulted them with?
Bohemond_1069 at November 7, 2005 02:45 PM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5398694,00.html seems to answer the above question. Quoting we have:
===
The growing violence is forcing France to confront long-simmering anger in its suburbs, where many immigrants and their French-born children live on society's margins, struggling with high unemployment, racial discrimination and despair - fertile terrain for crime of all sorts as well as for Muslim extremists offering frustrated youths a way out.
===

The above reasons have nothing to do with Islam.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at November 7, 2005 4:42 PM

High unemployment, racial discriminationa and depsair have absoulutely nothing to do with Islam. This troika exists on every continent and in every nation.

The response taken by the rioters to these has everything to do with Islam.

Posted by: Lisa at November 7, 2005 4:53 PM

Mo said "many immigrants and their French-born children live on society's margins, struggling with high unemployment, racial discrimination and despair" So the Quran does not give them a sense of self worth and pride? Maybe it is because of the verses in the Quran that tell them not to assimilate into their host country's culture? I quote:
Quran 4:144 "O ye who believe! Choose not disbelievers for friends in place of believers. Would ye give Allah a clear warrant against you?" and again in Quran 3:118 "O you who believe! do not take for intimate friends from among others than your own people; they do not fall short of inflicting loss upon you; they love what distresses you; vehement hatred has already appeared from out of their mouths, and what their breasts conceal is greater still; indeed, We have made the communications clear to you, if you will understand."
Not quite the same message Jesus taught about loving all people and forgiving one another, is it?

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at November 7, 2005 5:17 PM

"Mohideen" sez:

"...The Zakat is collected from the Muslims at a rate of 20% of booty;.."

And where does the booty come from, Mohideen? By 'peacefully' robbing, raping and killing infidels?

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at November 7, 2005 5:51 PM

Mo, you also said "Any individual who coerces directly or indirectly a non-Muslim to become a Muslim violates 2:256 and is answerable to God Almighty on the Day of Judgment."
Google Moulay Ismail and bastinado. And while you're at it, what about the Janassaries who were taken from their Christian parents and forced to become soldiers for Islam? They were offered the choice of converting to Islam or death. Sure, no cumpulsion, right. Stick a ham sandwich in it.

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at November 7, 2005 5:57 PM

And where does the booty come from, Mohideen? By 'peacefully' robbing, raping and killing infidels?
sheik yer'mami at November 7, 2005 05:51 PM

Any gift one receives is a booty.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at November 7, 2005 6:45 PM

BS booty has always been defines as plunder i.e. goods taken by force.

Posted by: JadeDragoness at November 7, 2005 9:37 PM

Not quite the same message Jesus taught about loving all people and forgiving one another, is it?
Bohemond_1069 at November 7, 2005 05:17 PM

What about the Message Prophet Jesus, peace be upon him would teach on his descent, the descent all of us are looking forward to. To a distance where his body odor could be felt, the non-believer would die. No chance of even expressing belief; the person must be a believer in Prophet Jesus, peace be upon him, before even getting near him.

Prophet Jesus, son of Mary, peace be upon them was an embodiment of pure love in the first part of his life on earth; he would be pure terror for the non-believer in his second part of his life.

Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, who lived his earthly life in between the two parts of the life of Prophet Jesus, peace be upon him, was moderate: neither did he observe pure love so as to allow the enemies to attempt murder, not was he so stern that a non-believer could not approach him.

In computer language, Prophet Jesus, peace be upon him, is like a binary variable: either True or False only. Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, is like a fuzzy variable, permitting different shades of truth. Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, permitted a non-believer to learn about Islam and become a Muslim as per his own decision.

An example of a fuzzy variable is a tall person. How tall is tall?

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at November 7, 2005 10:03 PM

BS booty has always been defines as plunder i.e. goods taken by force.
JadeDragoness at November 7, 2005 09:37 PM

What is BS? I had given the meaning as applicable now for booty. If one insists on claiming that the sun has set by closing his eyes when the sun is at its brightest at noon, there is no way to help such a person.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at November 7, 2005 10:07 PM

You muslims can't have Jesus. He is not....never was...never will be....muslim.

Posted by: Carolyn2 at November 7, 2005 10:09 PM

High unemployment, racial discriminationa and depsair have absoulutely nothing to do with Islam. This troika exists on every continent and in every nation.
Lisa at November 7, 2005 04:53 PM

If high unemployment, racial discrimination, and despair exist in every continent and every nation, shame on mankind. One of the reasons the Muslims long for the Khilafath is that in Khilafath there would be no racial discrimination at all; the zakat and Sadaqa of the Muslims would ensure that no one dies of hunger, and there would be no despair. As regards unemployment, Islam encourages self development and trade thus the Muslims do not sit around looking for a job.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at November 7, 2005 10:13 PM

Booty has and is primarily defined as "stolen goods" but let's say you have the benefit of the doubt, booty was used in an archaic way, or it was a bad translation. However sheik yer'mami's question begs to be answered where did all this "booty" come from?

Posted by: JadeDragoness at November 7, 2005 11:03 PM

However sheik yer'mami's question begs to be answered where did all this "booty" come from?
JadeDragoness at November 7, 2005 11:03 PM

The oil wealth enjoyed by the Arabs is booty. Where did it come from? From God Almighty. So was every booty, it came from God Almighty.

There would be no benefit in digging up the past in which some Muslims might have erred. Digging the past and blaming the current Muslims is not a strategy to get common happiness.

Man creates nothing; in that sense everything was created by God Almighty and thus every gift is from God Almighty.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at November 7, 2005 11:23 PM

"Mohideen:"

You keep on lying, but we're not buying....

By the way: The Saudi oil was found, drilled and exported by British and US-companies. Once everything was in full swing, all was expropriated, or stolen. By our Saudi-"friends".

So, in 'Mohideen-logic' - one could indeed call it 'booty'...

The real Mo had a very clear concept of 'booty':

Booty was simply everything stolen from the caravans or from the conquered tribes, where he had the men killed and the women raped or otherwise enslaved. You call that "gift" Molhideen?

Mohideen: Your belief-system belongs in the 7th century, it has no place in this world. The Mohammedan nightmare must be destroyed, the West will not be lied to forever. Neither will we surrender. When we start to fight it will be the end of your cult.

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at November 8, 2005 1:13 AM

"Digging the past and blaming the current Muslims is not a strategy to get common happiness."

No it's not, every religion has dark stains on it's past, that's why we evolve and modernize, that's why we forgive and forget. However if Islam had evolved and modernized we wouldn't be on this blog would we? We draw up Islamic brutality from the past because it exactly parallels what is taking place today in the streets of Paris. Something inheirently prevents Islam for changing, and it's causing a lot of problems for the rest of us.

Posted by: JadeDragoness at November 8, 2005 1:25 AM

"Mohideen:"

"...Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, is like a fuzzy variable, permitting different shades of truth..."

A "fuzzy variable?"

Probably. Very much so. Even Aisha, his child wife found it rather suspect that 'Allah' changed his mind whenever the 'prophet' found it convenient. When a guy runs around with semen-stained clothing hopping from one piece of 'booty' to the next I think he has to be quite inventive to justify it, even in the seventh century!

Another "Mohideen" gem:

"...Islam encourages self development and trade thus the Muslims do not sit around looking for a job..."

Tell that to the millions of lazy Arabs and other Mohammedans that lay around the coffeehouses smoking the hukkah all day or chewing Kat!

Anyway, this claim is so ridiculous I just point out to you that you even contradict yourself by stating:

"...The growing violence is forcing France to confront long-simmering anger in its suburbs, where many immigrants and their French-born children live on society's margins, struggling with high unemployment, racial discrimination and despair - fertile terrain for crime of all sorts as well as for Muslim extremists offering frustrated youths a way out.
===

The above reasons have nothing to do with Islam..."

Of course not, Mohideen. Of course not.

But it shows us clearly what a liar and what a twisted psychology you, and Mohammedans generally have...

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at November 8, 2005 3:00 AM

But it shows us clearly what a liar and what a twisted psychology you, and Mohammedans generally have...
sheik yer'mami at November 8, 2005 03:00 AM

What a hasty generalization? Just from one individual to all Muslims?

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at November 8, 2005 7:29 AM

Mo, if I may be so familiar, you are absolutely right about one thing: Either Jesus is a liar and a false prophet or everything He said is true and He is a true prophet of God. Yes or no. Black or white. No maybe, no shades of grey. Jesus said He was the Son of God. Jesus called God His Father. The Quran says Allah has no sons, but he had 3 daughters, Lat, Uzza, and Manat, but later Mohammed decided he had been fooled by Satan and retracted those verses in the Quran. Who is right then? Did any true prophet of God ever change what God told him? Was any true prophet Of God ever fooled by Satan? You call Mohammed a prophet, yet there is no prophecy in the Quran. Think about it.......

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at November 8, 2005 5:43 PM

Mohideen,

Islam teaches hate for nonbelievers and says we should die. Is it your position that the Islamist of today do not practice this, therefore
admitting that the whole quran is not right and worshipers must change thier beliefs?

My God and your god are two different gods.Your god says kill the nonbelievers and have losts of virgins to be intimate with when you die.

My God says, Believe, and profess with thy mouth, in The Lord Jesus Christ and that He defeated Death and Hell and Rose Again in Three Days and you will be in Heaven with Him and then rein with Him for 1,000 years on Earth.

Nowhere in my Bible does it say to kill nonbelievers or that God will provide us with a brothel stocked with women because we murdered the infadels.

Comments?

Posted by: D.Brasher at November 9, 2005 11:20 AM