At a time when Arab and Islamic leaders and organizations are investing great efforts and large amounts of money and time in order to improve the image of Islam and of the Muslims, some imams are working in an organized manner to brainwash adolescents in the Muslim community and to plant bogus ideas in their minds concerning Islam, jihad, takfir [accusing other Muslims of apostasy], heresy and the way [Muslim] society has strayed from the right path.

So, in other words, these imams are spoiling the PR campaign and the "adolescents" are giving the game away by telling the truth.

Posted by: Interested at March 2, 2006 5:00 PM

From MEMRI:
In an article published in the London Arabic daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi, Dr. Muhriz Al-Husseini, director of the Center for Dialogue and Research and editor of the U.S.-published newspaper Al-Minassa Al-'Arabiya, warns that religious extremism and ignorance are spreading among the young generation of Muslims in the U.S.
Posted by Robert at March 2, 2006 04:37 PM

First and foremost, we are extremely uneasy regarding the source of the news, MEMRI. From http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,773258,00.html we have:
===
The co-founder and president of Memri, and the registered owner of its website, is an Israeli called Yigal Carmon.
Mr - or rather, Colonel - Carmon spent 22 years in Israeli military intelligence and later served as counter-terrorism adviser to two Israeli prime ministers, Yitzhak Shamir and Yitzhak Rabin.
===
Read more about MEMRI in the link given above.

We hope to look at Jihad in the light of Islamic Scriptures and give our opinion in http://spaces.msn.com/deentech/

For the present, we do not know the intention of Dr. Muhriz in issuing the warning. Allah SWT knows best.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at March 2, 2006 5:05 PM

At this point -- I say "Bring it on, Muslims."

Let's stop pussyfooting around. Let's 'spell it out for each other'. Let's 'lay it all out on the table'.

And let's finally have some clarity with regards to Muslims in our midst. (Guerillas in our midst, according to this Arab's opinion, and mine, btw...)

Continuing to allow them free access to the West is suicidal for us and them... And it ins't Islam's image which needs attention -- this has been a gigantic problem all along... The radicalization of young Muslims in America is simply because now they think they can, now they feel empowered to do it -- it isn't about "disenfranchisement" -- it never was -- like many things in discussing Islam, it's the exact opposite of the notions popularly held -- Now they're embracing Jihad because they imagine their Jihad will meet with success... It's the EMPOWERMENT of Muslims which results in all the worst Islam has to offer, not the other way around...

We are beginning to understand that they've interpreted our tolerance and hopefulness as weakness, and frailty. The have determined that our failurse to lash out against them (as they would have surely done against us had the tables been turned) as a manifestation of our abject cowardice, of our effeminacy, of our decadence and cravenness. They have been encourage that after their every insult against us, after their every transgression, every betrayal, every murderous atrocity , that we have failed to act against them -- To them, this forebearance isn't strength, patience, or tolerance... It is the height of weakness, and the Muslim is taught to exploit and push for further advantage.... Muslims will never reflect our tolerance back towards us, as we expect. They hate us because Islam teaches them to hate us. Period.

It's time to treat them as the enemies they are, to recognize that they've overstayed their welcome FAR too long in our domain - the experiment didn't work -- they don't belong here...

It was only a matter of time before the Muslims in America also began manifesting the 1300 year 100% track record of Islam -- only a matter of time before they reached a sufficient saturation level, a sufficient level of empowerment, a sufficient level of confidence that their violence, philobarbarism, and intolerance would move Islam's cause down the field... Apparently they have come to just such a conclusion now, with barely 1% of the American population... Staggering. Stunning. Unacceptable.

If they embrace violence and extremism as they have in Europe and everywhere else they've been permitted to roam free and unhindered, then we must brutally teach them the lessons of the Constitution and the various amendments. I'd start with the First Amendment, and I'm exercising it, right here -- right now...
Then I'd dust off the Second Amendment, and get ready to rumble.

They want Jihad? We'll givem them Jihad. Bring it on! Muslim youth of America!

Posted by: jsla at March 2, 2006 5:06 PM

Mohideen:

The source of the news is not MEMRI. The source of the news is the London Arabic daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi and the author is Dr. Muhriz Al-Husseini, director of the Center for Dialogue and Research and editor of the U.S.-published newspaper Al-Minassa Al-'Arabiya. MEMRI simply translated the article from the Arabic. However, if you think that the article does not reflect the Arabic orginal, please tell us in what way it does not. Of course, I don't know if I can trust YOU as a reliable source! LOL!

Posted by: Mentat at March 2, 2006 5:20 PM

Koranic verses and sermons that encourage jihad, martyrdom, self-sacrifice, and the striking of terror into the hearts of the enemy

I posted on the UC Irvine thread below quotes taken directly from the Muslim Student Association (MSA) pages hosted on the University of Southern California website. The MSA say the Koran is the immutable word of God, revealing God's plan for all of us, Mulim and non-Muslim alike, no other law is relevant.

So what are these verses, which command as God's word the above, doing in the Koran if they do not mean what they say? Subjugate Christians and Jews, make them submit to Islam and pay the tax. Jews are apes and pigs, the vilest of creatures. Kill the polytheist and blasphemers. Convert, submit or die.

If you, Dr. Al Husseini, are saying this is not God's immutable word then please explain for us this logical disconnect.

Posted by: Lisa at March 2, 2006 5:32 PM

"Of course, I don't know if I can trust YOU as a reliable source! "

But why not trust this inveterate Jew hater, and Muslim diverter of the thread? Why ever would you say such an Islamophobic thing to that pious Muslim?

Why -- he's a Muslim, don't you know! His religion forbids him from lying... He's told us so many times before... And he's a fine upstanding chap too. Can't you tell from the royal plural he uses? This should have clued you in...

Posted by: jsla at March 2, 2006 5:34 PM

His religion forbids him from lying... He's told us so

l believe in the Koran it is acceptable to lie to a non-muslim. l was surprised that Rush's fill in today "Roger Hedgecock" actually said that on the radio! it is promising to hear this!

Posted by: Lulu at March 2, 2006 5:52 PM

Can't you tell from the royal plural he uses?
Posted by: jsla at March 2, 2006 05:34 PM

I use the ‘inclusive we’ including the reader; the ‘royal plural’ is applicable for God Almighty alone.

As regards the Jihad to which every Muslim is invited, see item 8 in http://spaces.msn.com/deentech/

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at March 2, 2006 5:56 PM

Hearing a Muslim say his religion forbids him to lie is like hearing a guy at the poker table say he's never told a lie...

Both are suspect of something -- probably lying.

Posted by: jsla at March 2, 2006 6:04 PM

Then it is time to clean their own house.

The youth that he talks about have not heard a moderate muslim voice. If the moderates really do exist they fear speaking up for loss of their own lives at the hand of their own religion.

Moderates (if they really exist) must step up to the goverment and legilators and let them know what is going on, who the people are, and which mosques. And point out what if what is being preached is religion or political ideology.

Posted by: alaskan1000 at March 2, 2006 6:05 PM

Mohideen, instead of telling us the royal we is for God's use alone, perhaps you should give Elizabeth II a call. I understand she is home right now watching the telly at Windsor. Better hurry though, it's getting close to her bedtime.

Posted by: Lisa at March 2, 2006 6:14 PM

Mohideen:

I am underwhelmed by your response to my critique of your previous post.

As far as Muslims and lying goes, here is the Shafi Shariah view on it (and bear in mind as long as there is one infidel criticizing Islam anywhere, Muslims are being persecuted so the Jihad is always on; it's too bad Muslims can't figure out that the proper way to answer a critique is to ANSWER IT, not declare Jihad; for example, the classic, say it's a religion of peace or I'll kill you):

http://boston.indymedia.org/newswire/display_any/21475

25. Lying is permissible in a time of war (or jihad)

pp. 744-745

PERMISSIBLE LYING

R8.2 The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said,

“He who settles disagreements between people to bring about good or says something commendable is not a liar.”

This much is related by both Bukhar and Muslim, with Muslim’s version recording that Umm Kulthum added,

“I did not hear him permit untruth in anything people say, except for three things: war, settling disagreements, and a man talking with his wife or she with him (A: in smoothing over differences).”

This is an explicit statement that lying is sometimes permissible for a given interest, scholars having established criteria defining what types of it are lawful. The best analysis of it I have seen is by Imam Abu Hamid Ghazali, who says, “Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (N: i.e. when the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible), and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory. … Whether the purpose is war, settling a disagreement, or gaining the sympathy of a victim legally entitled to retaliate against one so that he will forbear to do so; it is not unlawful to lie when any of these aims can only be attained through lying. But it is religiously more precautionary in all such cases to employ words that give a misleading impression, meaning to intend by one’s words something that is literally true, in respect to which one is not lying, while the outward purport of the words deceives the hearer, though even if one does not have such an intention and merely lies without intending anything else, it is not unlawful in the above circumstances.”

Posted by: Mentat at March 2, 2006 6:59 PM

Interested – yes, your point about the “image of Islam” struck me immediately too.

From the article:

“Therefore, he is convinced that the way to eternal life and Paradise is through jihad [alone]”

Anyone else notice the appended “[alone]”? That means one thing if it came from Dr al-Husseini himself (it would suggest his acknowledgement of the legitimacy of jihad) and another thing altogether if it were appended by someone else, say a translator at MEMRI. I wonder where it came from?

"He insisted that the fundamental obligation of every Muslim in his life is to fight against the infidels - both Muslim and non-Muslim. When I asked him how he defines an infidel, he answered without hesitation: whoever fails to fulfill the obligation of jihad. When I asked him against whom the jihad should be directed, he answered, again without hesitation: the jihad should be directed against the infidels. When I tried to understand who, in his opinion, are infidels, he said: Everyone who does not believe in the truth that I believe in.”

It may be just me, but what I read from this paragraph is that the author primarily objects to these young folks lumping in Muslims (who don’t actively engage in jihad) with non-Muslims, as “infidels”. But we’ve seen that sort of selective indignation from Muslims before – quite noteably after the Amman Jordan wedding bombing.

"The painful truth is that such a young man - only 16 years old - who doesn't have any life experience, any true knowledge in matters of religion, or any solid criteria for understanding the fundamentals of religious law and shari'a - is a victim of circumstances that he did not create.”

His reference to understanding “shari’a” does not encourage my impression of him as a moderate.

So to sum up my overall take on this article, I see a “moderate” Muslim who 1. Does believe in Sharia 2. Does acknowledge the legitimacy of violent jihad (although it isn’t the “only way”) 3. Is not happy about the prospect of being labeled an infidel by the more radical Muslims 4. Is concerned about the “image” of Islam and the fact that these radical Muslims (in this case in America) may be jeapordizing that image, and thus making it much more difficult for so-called “moderate” Muslims like himself to spread Islam through da’wa and eventually achieve their goals of spreading Sharia law.

That’s my take on it.

Posted by: Caroline at March 2, 2006 7:03 PM

If the American government continues to allow in, as it apparently is, Muslim immigrants, people who do not declare, but clearly possess, in their mental baggaage, the contents of the Qur'an and the Hadith, and the unshakeable view of Muhammad as uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil, the Perfect Man, the Model for All Time, then that government is failing in its primary, even primordial, duty -- the duty to protect. It is creating, with each new immigrant, potential dangers, not imaginary dangers, but real dangers. Dangers of being shouted down at lectures on campuses. Dangers of being threatened or threats being carried out. Dangers of constant brainwashing of the most alienated in our society, the economically or socially marginalzed. Dangers to our economic wellbeing, as more and more money has to be diverted into expenses associated with enhanced security (including guards at synagogues and churches, at Jewish and Christian day schools, at Hindu temples, at airports, at train stations, on subways, at bus terminals, at nuclear power plants, at chemical plants, at oil and gas terminals, at every important government building, at police stations, at fire stations, at every meeting that is open to the public to which Muslims, carefully arriving in groups to intimidate those whom they believe might in any way oppose them, oppose their desire to change the laws, the customm, the manners, to limit the freedoms we take for granted by getting more and more of us to accept their take on things, their notion that Western freedom of speech must be severely curtailed in order not to offend them, the Muslims, not to depict or portray even in words Muhammad as anything other than uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil, when many of us beg to differ, not to speak the truth about the contnts of Qur'an and Hadith so that we will be helpless to adequately respond, not least across the ocean in Europe, where little by little the dhimmification of societies continues, helped along by the attitude of such people as the Dutch government minister who would not, dared not, actually read the Qur'an or otherwise inform herself about the tenets and teachings of Islam nor ask any of the most obvious and sensible questions of her Muslim interlocutors lest she appear to be "confrontational" -- all this is occuring because members of Congress and members of the Executive are colluding, either willfully or through a kind of criminal negligence, in violating their duty to protect us from further inroads by those who deeply belief in a belief-system that does not wish us, the Infidels, well.

What is to be done? Not more pieties about tolerance and pluralism, please, whether from the Administration, or members of Congress, or the editors of The New Duranty Times. One would not, I take it, allow into this country en masse known Naziskins from Germany. One would not allow into this country en masse white-supremacist supporters of Eugene Terreblanche of South Africa. One would realize that such people are a permanent threat to a large number of our own citizens, and would simply not give them entry visas. Why, then, when what Islam clearly inculcates is a division of the world between Believer and Infidel, and sets out the duty of Jihad, sometimes interpreted as a collective duty, sometimes as an individual duty of every Believer, to spread Islam, by tearing down all the obstacles (such as the laws, customs, manners, beliefs of the Infidels) that stand in the way of the ultimate goal, which is to incorporate, step by step, all the Lands of the Infidels, not necesarily insisting that everyone in them become a Muslim, but insisting that no barriers at all, as defineed by Muslims, can exist to the rule of Islam, to the imposition of the laws of Islam, to the dominance of Muslims themselves, long before they constitute a majority. For "Islam is to dominate, and not to be dominated."

Mr. Justice Jackson said, famously, that the "Constitution is not a suicide pact."

We might add: "The immigration and naturalization laws are not a suicide pact, either." We have a right to defend ourselves, and not to admit into our midst those who are taught -- read the Qur'an, read the Hadith, look at how Muhammmad regarded, and treated, the Infidels over whom he was victorious, read the 1350-yearhistory of Islamic conquest and subsequent subjugation of non-Muslims, lorded in over by Muslim masters in those formerly Infidel lands.

Study history. Study the texts. Yes, you in Washington -- all of you.

Protect us. Protect us, physically, and our country, as an idea. Protect our civilizational legacy. Do not be so cavalier, or think that you yourselves are protected by wealth and power, and that you can afford to be heedless. That duty to protect comes before all others. Fulfill it, or get out the way for others who are willing to do so in your stead.

Posted by: Hugh at March 2, 2006 7:16 PM

We have an ever-growing muslim population here in Tampa and the sport of paintball is very popular with them. I’m sure it is harmless fun. I let my kids play so the can practice their own hunt the taliban skills. I’m sure it is just harmless fun, I grew up playing cowboys and Indians and I never took the game as a life choice. My 16 year old was telling me the kids at his high school tease the muslim and Indian boys by calling them “terrorists or suicide bomber”. Naturally, I put a stop to this nonsense, at least as far as my own kid is concerned. I patiently explained to him the Indian kids were not muslim’s nor were they prone to grow into terrorists. I strictly forbade him to tease or let anyone else pick on the Indians. Luckily he is big enough to convince the others to leave them alone. We did have a serious conversation on weather or not I thought the muslim youth were terrorists and my answer was “not yet”. I explained if at any point they decide to follow the koran then it was the only avenue open to them. They wouldn’t all turn to violence but they would simply choose to allow it to exist and passively support it. I explained I don’t consider all muslims as necessary bad and I had fought to protect them in several places. The trouble is with the ideology that they can never really join us or befriend us. He is currently reading Robert’s PIG, afterwards we will continue to discuss our friendly local muslim community and what their life goals are.

Posted by: Ronin at March 2, 2006 7:50 PM

The game of paintball has to do with finding a target, aiming, and hoping for a palpable hit. This is a "sport" that is clearly connected to other kinds of activities. Read Qaradawi, and you will see that idle sport is forbideen, but those that can be considered training for the Jihad, akin to martial arts, are permitted for that very reason.

Posted by: Hugh at March 2, 2006 8:02 PM

Hugh: "We might add: "The immigration and naturalization laws are not a suicide pact, either. We have a right to defend ourselves..."

We better stand up for that right before we lose it, as the Europeans may. I am reminded of a post I saw today at Brussels Journal, called "Former Soviet Dissident Warns For EU Dictatorship"

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/865

The part that sent a chill through my spine:

"If you go through all the structures and features of this emerging European monster you will notice that it more and more resembles the Soviet Union. Of course, it is a milder version of the Soviet Union. Please, do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that it has a Gulag. It has no KGB – not yet – but I am very carefully watching such structures as Europol for example. That really worries me a lot because this organisation will probably have powers bigger than those of the KGB. They will have diplomatic immunity. Can you imagine a KGB with diplomatic immunity? They will have to police us on 32 kinds of crimes – two of which are particularly worrying, one is called racism, another is called xenophobia. No criminal court on earth defines anything like this as a crime [this is not entirely true, as Belgium already does so – pb]. So it is a new crime, and we have already been warned. Someone from the British government told us that those who object to uncontrolled immigration from the Third World will be regarded as racist and those who oppose further European integration will be regarded as xenophobes... I watch very carefully how political correctness spreads and becomes an oppressive ideology...Look at this persecution of people like the Swedish pastor who was persecuted for several months because he said that the Bible does not approve homosexuality. France passed the same law of hate speech concerning gays. Britain is passing hate speech laws concerning race relations and now religious speech, and so on and so forth. What you observe, taken into perspective, is a systematic introduction of ideology which could later be enforced with oppressive measures. Apparently that is the whole purpose of Europol. Otherwise why do we need it? To me Europol looks very suspicious. I watch very carefully who is persecuted for what and what is happening, because that is one field in which I am an expert. I know how Gulags spring up."

Posted by: Caroline at March 2, 2006 8:12 PM

It was an attempt at sarcasm, I know why the little darling play. I let my own kids play for the same reason, we called it “live environment training” while I was in the military. We used better toys but the purpose was the same. I encourage my kids and friends to play just in case at some future point in their lives they have to hunt a few jihadists. I also let them shoot real weapons and taught them to hunt. I don’t think I have any diabolical purposes in mind but I took the old boy scout motto about being prepared to heart. A military technique I taugh was called “know your enemy” I encourage everyone to meet the local muslim community and see for themselves how the religion of peace is helping us misguided and out of date infidels come into the 21st century. Ok, now I’m just being silly.

Posted by: Ronin at March 2, 2006 8:22 PM

jsla-

"Guerillas in our midst" (!) LOL

If that's your phrase, kudos supremo.

We need a bumper sticker to put on U.S. officals' cars:

READ THE KORAN- and weep!

Posted by: profitsbeard at March 2, 2006 8:52 PM

Look, we cannot assume that the wahhabi sect, even though it is at the pinnacle of islamic hate in the world, is our only threat, b/c that would be misleading the GenPub. The wahhabi's have been in power since the early 1800's and they have done a hellofa(no pun intended) job in spreadin their violent form of islam. Due to that, most of all the sects have been infected, in the sense of wahbbism, and in some way or another, become just as dangerous. I hate wahabbist, and I know they are operating in 80+ precent of our mosques in the USA. That leaves me with a very deserving mistrust in any muslim that visits his local mosque for prayers/sermons. They're all involved in any attack that may come, and to say otherwise in misleading. From the madrassa's funded in Pakistan to the mosques in your area, the wahabbi influence is present. So where does that lead us? We have been infiltrated on a level never before seen, and the most infuriating part is the GenPub's ignorance on this issue!

Posted by: Bayoucoyote at March 2, 2006 9:00 PM

"takfir [accusing other Muslims of apostasy]" hmm, this looks like a good thing - if the extremists alienate those they perceive as moderate, maybe the real moderates will need to form a revised and moderate Islam for so-called 'apostates' to join. In fact, if there were a clear difference, it would be easier to identify the extremists and outlaw their religion as not a religion but an anti-democratic movement.

BTW Mohideen: Muttawa.com explains MEMRI nicely: Islamists say something stupid in the press, MEMRI reveals it to the world through simply translating it, then Islamists jump up and down shouting "but MEMRI is run by Jooooos"! Thanks for showing us all exactly how this works - very funny!!

Posted by: Lilith at March 2, 2006 9:02 PM

While I'm at it, here's another post I threw at a buddy of mine:

Jan30,2006

Well, it's only a couple of days late...much like the attention that is needed at all mosques, corner stores and social gatherings that muslims attend. In the end, what seems to be the moderate muslims that the naive citizens of our country so desperately reach out to are really jihadist in training for an inevitable takeover bid. It will fail miserably in the end, but it will kill an untold # of muzzie huggers with other US citizens who threw their trust into the bosom of the cross dressing moderate muslims. Watch for things to come, but be prepared to defend what you hold dearest in your life.

Posted by: Bayoucoyote at March 2, 2006 9:03 PM

Moderates, identify yourselves. Become apostates to the extremists, so that we know you are genuinely not on their side. Be as despised by the extremists as infidels are, and live in the same fear.

Posted by: Lilith at March 2, 2006 9:13 PM

"Guerillas in our midst" -- I thought I thought it up --but sadly - 600 hits on google --

I also thought I came up with "Dhimmitude for Dummies" the other day -- but NOOOO -- 31 prior hits...

Dang...

Posted by: jsla at March 2, 2006 9:59 PM

jsla,
Maybe it's just me, but I think the message
is getting out. Slowly, imperceptibly to some,
but it is getting out.

Try to help the people nearest you understand
the menace. Then they'll help others, and so on,
and ...

Posted by: American at March 2, 2006 10:10 PM

"Mohideen" above is not the first and not the last Mohammedan hoping to discredit credible sources. Some of these deflectors are stupid enough to suggest that if a Jew is involved, a source of information should be doubted or do not hold up to scrutiny:

"The co-founder and president of Memri, and the registered owner of its website, is an Israeli called Yigal Carmon.
Mr - or rather, Colonel - Carmon spent 22 years in Israeli military intelligence and later served as counter-terrorism adviser to two Israeli prime ministers, Yitzhak Shamir and Yitzhak Rabin."

Readers and posters here on JW/DW have no problem with that, Mohideen. I for one think highly of MEMRI and highly respect Yigal Carmon's work.

I can't make you a similar compliment, Mohideen: I would much prefer to give you a shoe in your backside for your attempted smears...

Lets meet and have coffee....

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at March 2, 2006 11:06 PM

Re: Paintball. I've heard other stories about young Muslim males practicing paintball in the U.S. There was also a case in Ottawa (Canada) where a terrorist suspect's brother and the brother's friends were practicing paintball. In their phone calls and other communications to each other they would refer to paintball as "hockey." When asked why they called it "hockey," they said they did not want to arouse suspicion.

Posted by: Archimedes at March 3, 2006 12:15 AM

"The painful truth is that such a young man - only 16 years old - who doesn't have any life experience, any true knowledge in matters of religion, or any solid criteria for understanding the fundamentals of religious law and shari'a - is a victim of circumstances that he did not create. He is a young man who has tried to find an identity for himself in religion, and was given incorrect interpretations of the monotheistic revelations. He received his knowledge from people whom he considers authorities in religion and religious law... and at the same time, he does not find anyone who can correct his views and his understanding. Therefore, he is convinced that the way to eternal life and Paradise is through jihad [alone]... "

Good Lord. Replace the immam with a Leftist college professor and you can see quite clearly the problem we have with our schools.

Eh nariz, kj?

Posted by: Gary at March 3, 2006 4:52 AM

Good old Mohideen. Just knew he had to resurface at some point. And this time with Brian Witless Whitaker's lame attack on MEMRI, commissioned by Ken "I'm not an anti-Semite and Sheik Qawadari is a moderate" Livingstone. Having been taped uttering directly offensive remarks to journalist Oliver Feingold and as well as witnessed in the act, Livingstone probably won't be quite as lucky in appealing his suspension from his duties as mayor of Greater London as his greasy friend Geo. Al-Galawi has been so far. Professor Shalom Lappin at King's College has unearthed and published some highlights of Livingstone's career over the 30 years at the Engage website, and Red Ken's conduct that night was not out of the ordinary.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at March 3, 2006 8:10 AM

Mohideen Ibramsha

I like the MEMRI translation service,
it brought us the story of how
Islamic women agree to be beaten by their husbands

And that all across the Arab world the most popular way to beat your wife was with an electrical cord.

In the program, which was an open discussion - when the women tried to push the issue that perhaps a women could be smarter than a man – at times - they were quickly reminded – that the Koran says that this was not so.

The Muslim men have it sown up – every women under their control. My God - look - that Arab guy looks so smart, ‘his Koran says so’.
Leaking brains all over the place.
Just oozing brains.

Posted by: Pass It On at March 3, 2006 10:38 AM

point out what if what is being preached is religion or political ideology.
Posted by: alaskan1000 at March 2, 2006 06:05 PM

Islam gives complete guidance including the type of government and rules of governing. No need for a moderate Muslim to spy on his brothers and sisters. Islam includes political aspects as well.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at March 4, 2006 12:19 PM

It's a tragedy that the juvenile nay-sayers are accomplishing nothing but encouraging the enemy to believe that America is divided and thus weak. The stronger they feel, the meaner they get.

Posted by: nhoop616 at March 5, 2006 10:52 PM