They are only interested in his surrender to their principles."-

We should get the debate rolling about shipping Muslims OUT!!!!!!!!

The UK Governmental people may nto have the balls to do it. We ought to make choice, either they are with us or they are against us. BUSH was right!!!!

Posted by: MusHuntCowboy at October 22, 2006 5:11 AM

The same laws that cover "hoodies" and other facial coverings should cover veils - i.e. it should be decoupled from Islam and made quite plain that the covering of the face in traditional UK society is only done by bank robbers and terrorists ....

many banks ask for crash helmets and "hoodies" to be removed before entry on security reasons - but do they ask veiled women to remove their veils?

That's discrimination and hatred against bikers and hoodie wearers ..no?

Posted by: drk at October 22, 2006 5:15 AM

Right . Send them back to their "Asian" homeland where they can be oppressed in the Islamic manner.

Posted by: jay at October 22, 2006 5:24 AM

Some posters here have said that women are opressed in islam and they want to break free. I suspect that some of these posters were women's libbers. Well, just look at this crowd in the image above. They are actually happy to be the way they are ; and wanna bet their hubbys ain't gonna be clean shaven, smelling of Old Spice after shave anytime this month, if at all. They are living the life as it should be lived according to the koran. And they are happy. Some of these burka beauties are going to send their sons be suicide bombers. Some will strap the bombs onto their young kids themselves, for they walk the path of muhammad, and who could be fairer than him ?
Another poster here had said this, I quote him verbatim "islam kills all instincts, including maternal."

Posted by: arjun.sevak at October 22, 2006 5:29 AM

I think that maybe burkas worn in this manner are actually already illegal - which hoodies etc are not. This is because they might count as political uniforms and the 1936 Public Order Act made it an offence to wear political uniforms and to use threatening and abusive words. I do not have access to the details but maybe some one could check the possibility out - I have not seen the point taken in any paper.

Posted by: philiph35 at October 22, 2006 5:34 AM

This is simply UNBELIEVABLE!

Posted by: EliasAlucard at October 22, 2006 5:39 AM

Yeah I think the real picture is found here:
http://img145.imageshack.us/my.php?image=actualprotestxh4.jpg
I think this is what is on their mind, but hey, what would you do if this were true about your current living status?

Seaside702

Posted by: Seaside702 at October 22, 2006 5:41 AM

they might count as political uniforms and the 1936 Public Order Act ."- Philliph35

This is seriously worth checking and lets start suing these mothers and deporting'em NOW!!

These people are sick, they have induced HATE in many hearts.

Posted by: MusHuntCowboy at October 22, 2006 5:45 AM

I too support arresting Jack Straw and throwing him in jail, but for reasons completely different from that of his Muslimah critics.

Also, notice the Orwellian twist - 'The veil is women's liberation' - along the same lines as a country getting conquered by the Soviets, the Chicoms, the NVA during the Cold war - was considered 'liberation'.

Another thing - anyone notice how these women resemble KKKlansmen, if one just substitutes black for white? a-i-g, you are very astute, as always

Posted by: Infidel Pride at October 22, 2006 5:51 AM

There is only ONE solution to this: To repatriate them! They have not fitted in, are not fitting in, and will never fit in. REPATRIATE THEM!

Furthermore, veils shoould be banned forthwith. By law!

Tony Blair should have no problem banning the veil. He has already banned just about everything else anyway! So why is he waitng to ban the veil? Now that's one thing that really should be banned. The veil has no place in British society. Such veils are offensive and sinister and anti-social and hostile.

Posted by: Mark Alexander at October 22, 2006 5:52 AM

The veil on Muslim women makes them look like they are "owned" by their husbands. This is why I view it as "oppressive". Dressing modest is one thing, wearing the burka is going extreme.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at October 22, 2006 5:55 AM

Heaven forbid that minorities should dictate to
majorities.
Imagine an electoral system where effectively
two thirds of voters vote against the other third.
The minority gain power and might introduce
policies that were not in thier manifesto or take
us into illegal wars.
That is a recipe for disaster surely !

Posted by: aladdinsane57 at October 22, 2006 5:57 AM

In Response To arjun.sevak
I agree with your statement....because these women are raised in a country or part of the world where their status and belief was constructed. In an example: If I owned a country or area of land and made it known what the stipulations were to be able to coincide in my land were, and an outside group comes in and says that I am wrong with my laws and beliefs.....well, just like Iran, North Korea, and etc, would say.. well they probably wouldn't say anything but "goodbye". My point is that, IF YOU DONT LIKE THE PLACE YOU LIVE IN LEAVE! IF YOU HAVEN"T VOTED OR DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE LEAVE TOO Seaside702

Posted by: Seaside702 at October 22, 2006 6:05 AM

Allow muslim immigration now, repent and rue the day later.

A muslim will NEVER accept the rule of law laid down by people for the people. To them everything they survey is the domain of allah.

The hope or wish that they will integrate into our socities, will take an active part in furtherance of its wealth and be an honerable citizens is not only fruitless but dangerous.

Posted by: Hermit at October 22, 2006 6:07 AM

Seaside702, LOOOOOOL!!!!

Thanks for that, brilliant.

It looks like these veiled women may get the reaction they were hoping for

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6074286.stm

Warning over UK race riot danger

Trevor Phillips said Britain is becoming polarised
The polarised debate over full-face veils could spark race riots in the UK, the head of the Commission for Racial Equality has warned.
Excessive criticism of Muslims and over-sensitivity among some Muslims had grown, Trevor Phillips said.

"This could be the trigger for the grim spiral that produced riots in the north of England five years ago," he told the Sunday Times.

Mr Phillips said a "gentle, nuanced" debate was needed.

'Need to chill'

Jack Straw, Leader of the House of Commons, has said he preferred women not to wear full-face veils at his surgeries in his constituency because he believed they made communication difficult.

It sparked furious debate in the media, along with stories about a Christian British Airways worker wearing a cross, and a Muslim teaching assistant wearing a full-face veil in the classroom.

Mr Phillips said the polarised debate over race and religion risked a repeat of the Burnley and Oldham riots, while insisting: "This time the conflict would be much worse - we need to chill."

Mr Straw feels that covering faces can make community relations difficult

He told BBC One's AM programme people needed to feel as though they were playing a part in society, and issued a warning about allowing communities to separate.

"That is the way to create a country which is not at ease with itself," he told the BBC.

"We saw it in France last year where the French allowed north African communities to grow up completely separately, not feeling French.

"Eventually that frustration, that exclusion boiled over into the kind of car burning we saw last year...I do not want that for Britain."

On Mr Straw's comments, Mr Phillips told the Sunday Times Muslims leaders had been "overly defensive" in attacking the Blackburn MP.

"This was as much a comment about him and his generation as it was about the niqab," he wrote.

What should've been a proper conversation...seems to have been turned into the trial of a particular community

Trevor Phillips

"It maybe that be that people like [Mr] Straw have greater difficulty coping with the social gap that not seeing someone's face undoubtedly creates."

But he said later that while he welcomed the debate, it seemed to have turned into "something ugly".

"What should've been a proper conversation between all kinds of British people, seems to have been turned into the trial of a particular community and that cannot be right," he said.

The head of the Muslim Council of Britain, Muhammad Abdul Bari, has complained that a "drip feed" of ministerial statements on the veils issue had stigmatised the Muslim community.

Next month the CRE will host the largest race convention held in Europe, marking the body's 30th anniversary, ahead of its handover to the Commission for Equality and Human Rights.

--------------------------------------------

Mr Phillips said a "gentle, nuanced" debate was needed.

'Need to chill'

Do you think this is going to happen ?
Thing is though, the average British non Muslim WAS willing to debate sensibly.
However, patience has run thin due to the lack of one party to act in a rational and civilised manner.
Guess which party that is ?

Posted by: D'Albini at October 22, 2006 6:08 AM

posted by bigcatgirl13106

The veil on Muslim women makes them look like they are "owned" by their husbands. This is why I view it as "oppressive". Dressing modest is one thing, wearing the burka is going extreme.

Wow, your statement made me think for the first time ever: If I beat my wife out of love because it is customary for me to do so and I could cover her up from head to toe, the burka is the way to go....

/rhyme not intended
Seaside702

Posted by: Seaside702 at October 22, 2006 6:09 AM

Posted by: D'Albini

It is good to have a laugh and step back from reality one in a while when you are reading all this and absorbing the hate in the world.I truly believe the statements that I superimposed on those pages the protesters were holding, but felt so sad in my heart that, that is what they want to say! Think about it, you are told that you are nothing and an object your whole life since birth....my heart greives for these people. "For the sins of the fathers have been passed down truley."

Seaside702

Posted by: Seaside702 at October 22, 2006 6:15 AM

Mr Phillips said the polarised debate over race and religion risked a repeat of the Burnley and Oldham riots, while insisting: "This time the conflict would be much worse - we need to chill."-

Mr. Phillips is a dangerous moron. That is exactly the Mus crowd needs to their advantage. What we need is to use the law and start suing the Misfits. Also make a strong case to deport them It can't be difficult.

Posted by: MusHuntCowboy at October 22, 2006 6:16 AM

In that photo, are the masked ladies wearing eye makeup? Looks like mascara or something similar, though maybe not.

If it is makeup though, would there be a contradiction between that seductive technique and the radical covering of almost the entire face? Giving with one hand what you pretend to take away with the other?

Posted by: traeh at October 22, 2006 6:17 AM

This is totally expected if you consider the near 1400 yr stagnation of Islamic society and its total refusal to make ANY compromises with those western states who often totally support these parasitic scum.

Deport them by all means but do not ask me what I would do to them.

However as NO western country has either the testicles or the wisdom to even make the scum back off let alone run, then no doubtr we will have to wait until they use a WMD but by then it may be too late.

Those who boggle at the way that islamic women not only praise the islamic bonds which bind them, but also openly show their love for the causal institution simply have no idea of how effective a life of indoctrination can be.

Almost every Muslim is brainwashed from birth in the manner of "4 legs good; 2 legs bad" by rote and by punishment. The Nazis did a very good job on the german people in 6 years, so you can imagine what near 1400 years can do.

The only truly free muslims are the apostates and the dead as islam's 6 pillars of coercion create invisible bars even to awareness. Every freedom which we possess but which they do not is inverted into some evil, decadent vice or near so that they cannot see its virtues as they roll around in their Islamic effluent like happy hogs.

Somewhere I once read of an interview with a born slave(one who had been born into captivity).
The interviewer was amazed that the slave had never tried to escape; had never queried his position and had no concept whatsoever of freedom, whether literally or just freedom of choice, so totally inurred to his existence was he.

When the concentration camps were opened and the inmates liberated the allied soldiers were amazed about just how the former inmates would ask them for permission for even the most basic things(toilet) and often had to be ordered to look after themselves so dazed were they. Many of them no longer had any concept of freedom or choice and simply stood around like sheep at an abattoir.

Muslims are slaves to Islam. But they have been slaves for so long that they see the invisble pillars of coercion and its trappings now as something to proud of as it shows of their supposed supremacy, rather like the tattoos that street gangs use.

I know what I would do with them. Lord Jim blew his chance IMO.

Posted by: MisIslamist at October 22, 2006 6:24 AM

Giving with one hand what you pretend to take away with the other."-

Hypocrisy, deception, repression, 'honor'killings are the trademarks of Islam. That dos't matter to them, what matters to them is make sure that we can't live happily.

How long do we have left before UK becomes a battle ground for Jihadies?

Posted by: MusHuntCowboy at October 22, 2006 6:28 AM

I wouldn't have a problem with burkas and the like if they were the creation of a libertarian religion that included no desire to compel others. In a context of freedom, more modesty might often be salutary. My problem with the burka is that it happens to be part of Islam, and Islam is in too many respects a totalitarian ideology.

Posted by: traeh at October 22, 2006 6:28 AM

MisIslamist,
Perfect analogy there! Born into slavery and what do you know from there? I have asked that to a lot of scholars in my religion of beliefs. What about the kids who have no reading abilities and have no outside influences throughout their whole life?...This is what I have determined in my heart and my mind" The sins of the fathers have been passed down truly!" Brainwashing.. I might be able to see that as a true definite.
Seaside702

Posted by: Seaside702 at October 22, 2006 6:40 AM

Ironically, veiling the face makes it seem more sexual than when it's uncovered. Ali Sina once argued that by covering the whole woman, Islam treats the whole woman as pudenda.

Posted by: traeh at October 22, 2006 6:41 AM

Deport them?

Repatriate them?

Send them back to where they came from?

Hate to tell you, but a lot of the women who wear the niqab in the U.K. are born and raised white British reverts.

To where should they be sent?

They're just jerking everyone's chain.

Posted by: PRCS at October 22, 2006 6:59 AM

Sir Henry Morgan, good LORD dude.. I have had that same thought and have not said that to ANYONE, some might call that blasphemy in places. Great essay to read; as a what if type of statement and question? I haven't seen someone think outside the box and plant it out there for the public to see in a while.

Seaside702

Posted by: Seaside702 at October 22, 2006 7:09 AM

MisIslamist,

The truth is that this veil debate a sign of a growing angry backlash in the UK and the west against Islamofacism.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at October 22, 2006 7:11 AM

Seaside 702....it is quite amazing to find that even totally illiterate muslims can memorise the Koran by heart. It is wondrous what fear can do as a lever of coercion.

When I was child such feats of memory in Islamic children were not that uncommon but now as literacy increases in Islamic countries you do not seem to hear much about it anymore.

One would think thnat to learn it off by heart (as opposed to reading it and being able to query it) might be preferable and it would not surprise me that if the whole world became all dar al islam to find that illiteracy became a tool of state again. The Nazis wanted the slavs to be only capable of reading thier daily orders and to be able to count up to 100 and this was state policy which was underway already by 1945.

Muslim states curently are in"catch up" mode with the west but if they win: Good Bye to general education, exept for the children of the elite.

Posted by: MisIslamist at October 22, 2006 7:18 AM

l think these women want attention because in their sad life, their men control them. so the only power left to them is to go out and look different, scary to some especially children, and that gives a sense of some power. l watched one time a documentary about an iranian man going back to iran to see his family, the jet he was flying once in iranina airspace the women passnergers began drapping themselves and became very quiet, and the reverse was when leaving iran air space, the iranian women quickly took off their covering. so you know when the majority of women want to be free when they live in countries like iran. so now these "devout muslim women" who are basically powerless, get a sense of power with all this attention in a Western country like GB. we need to send to sharia land now!

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at October 22, 2006 7:20 AM

It is not their fault. They are not allowed to go to school since they are women and therefore they have no idea what the signs say.

Posted by: CAIR SuckIt at October 22, 2006 7:21 AM

MisIslamist, maybe thats why the goverments or higher ups, pay the mothers and fathers for their sons homicidal bombing before he is of age to question athority or learn more.
Seaside702

Posted by: Seaside702 at October 22, 2006 7:24 AM

Sir Henry Morgan..."I chose my screen-name carefully".

So Did I although perhaps from yr point of view calling myself Captain Blood would have been better. However, I only recently reread Sabatini and quite honestly Blood was far too nice to be capable of fighting Muslims.

Don't wory about Shia!! It sems to me that every month or so the local (USA) Musims elect a candidate from those less braindead than usual Muslims, whose role it is to enter the Colosseum and squeak at the lions. They often have reasonable debating skills but their knowledge of true history as opposed to their sanctified and bowdlerised Islamic version usually lets them down as does their concept of truth. After I read and started to answer his opening salvo last night, I reached the part about Israel and I realised that he had no idea of the truth and I was not prepared to do his history teacher's job for him.
One good thing about them is that they all come out of the same pod and they all know the same lies. makes it so much easier but also makes it a total waste of yr time as they do not learn, they just disappear to whence they came.

Posted by: MisIslamist at October 22, 2006 7:32 AM

You know,to me the eyes are the sexiest part of a woman's face,so if they want to avoid drawing my attention they should wear sunglasses, the veil is not gonna do anything,it's just silly folklore. In Belgium - where i am from - a veil is forbidden, based on some old Carnaval law, so you're only allowed to disguise yourself on the streets on the day of carnaval..

Posted by: mongrel at October 22, 2006 7:32 AM

I say "Send 'em back to Pakistan or ship 'em out to Saudi Arabia". A festering Islamic hellhole is where they deserve to live and where they should be living. If they don't like our laws, deport them. If they think our politicians oppress Muslim women, then it is time for them to live under somebody who DOES oppress Muslim women, like Ahmadinejad.

Posted by: Spirit Of 1683 at October 22, 2006 7:39 AM

Even here in the States I have noticed an increase in Islamic dress, and I am not just talking about the hijab either. I have seen an increase in the full veil as well as dress for Muslim males as well.

My biggest problem isn't so much the dress, as the complete lack of social communication with or without the veil. In my experience one can not even have a friendly conversation with them, especially the women. I'm not talking about fully blown conversation from a stranger, but the friendly day-to-day chatter that is common in the States, while waiting in line, on the bus, and about a general daily business, is something one can not even feel comfortable doing with Muslims.

Certain sects in the States are similarly exclusive, but these sects don't go around cutting off peoples heads or actively promoting for a different form of law from the constitution.

I would feel a lot better if these so called majority of moderate muslims would speak out, but I don't HEAR them or SEE them. In general: their dress, the manners, and their lack of voice, expect to cry discrimination in a country that is far more accommadating than Islamic countries, adds to a total sense of out-right refusal to be a part of this country, or another non-Muslim country.

Until Muslims world-wide, but especially those leaving in non-Islamic lands, realize the need to be a part of their country and to respect religion freedom, AND to actively cry-out against terrorism and work AGAINST it then their exclusive dress and manners will only serve to re-enforce a feeling of isolation and lack of intergration. And.. quite frankly.. if the can not intergrate then they should leave. We should seriously consider revoking their citizenship and returning them to the Middle East. However, that is just a pipe-dream and we all know it. It will never happen. So I guess next race riots, and then civil war, and then World War III...if Europe is even left to fight it, same for the UK and the USA.

Posted by: Monkeywho at October 22, 2006 7:40 AM

"There will always be an England"; but only if the English will see this blitz clearly.

Here's a lyric from the Web site of (gasp!) the British National Party.

***

Goodbye to my England,
So long my old friend,
Your days they are numbered, been brought to an end.
To be Scottish or Irish, or Welsh is just fine,
But don’t say you’re English, that’s way out of line.

The French and the Germans,
May call themselves such,
As may the Norwegians, the Swedes and the Dutch.
You can say you are Russian, or maybe a Dane,
But don’t say you’re English, not ever again.

At Broadcasting House,
This word is taboo,
In Brussels they have scrapped it, in Parliament too.
Even schools are affected, staff do as they’re told,
“You must not teach the English, about the England of old”.

Writers like Shakespeare,
Milton and Shaw,
Don’t pupils learn about these anymore?
Hastings and Agincourt, Arnhen or mons,
Where England lost many of her very brave sons

We are not Europeans,
How on earth can we be?
Europe is miles away over the sea
We are English, from England, so let’s all be proud
And stand up and be counted and shout it out loud.

Let’s tell our government, tell the suits in Brussels too
We are proud of our heritage, the red white and blue.
Fly the flag of St George, or the Union Jack
Tell all of the world, we want our own country back.

http://www.bnp.org.uk/news_detail.php?newsId=1111

Posted by: StillBreathing at October 22, 2006 8:01 AM

I'm confused. The angles on the text of the Jack Straw banners above look correct to me, but is the photo genuine?

http://img145.imageshack.us/my.php?image=actualprotestxh4.jpg
Which picture came first? Could the Jack Straw one just be a better Photoshop?

Where did this supposed demonstration against Jack Straw take place, and when? I can find no mention whatsoever of it in the mainstream media. Where is the actual story on Ynet's website?

In contrast:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/6045644.stm

-------------

OK, the above is what I was going to post, and then I found this story. Here's a bigger version of the picture.

Posted by: Null at October 22, 2006 8:05 AM

Null, thanks for the bigger picture.

Jack Straw 'oppressor of human rights', 'enemy of civilisation', 'fascist' and a 'terrorist'. Who knows? Father to a cannabis dealer and brother of a sex offender?, maybe. But refering to him as Judeo-Christian is beyond the pale.

Posted by: western infidel at October 22, 2006 9:02 AM

David England: It's interesting, re sects with distinctive garb, that the Amish wrote a letter of thanks to the wider community for its help and support after their school was attacked and the girls in it killed. Also, there's a case where a Chassid, when ticketed by an NYC cop, cussed out the boy in blue, and then was told by the Bes Din to go down to the station to find the officer and personally apologize to him.

But where do we see a similar desire for peace with the neighbors among "uniformed" Muslims?

Posted by: Kepha at October 22, 2006 9:02 AM

"Jihad Watch News Editor Marisol Seibold has sent me this photo from Ynet News. Note the fury and intrasingence".

This mental illness. It is primarily a symbol of hostility to society. How people dress signals much about them.

Beyond this, women so clad are as equally considered primarily sex objects as women in some strip club. It is merely the reverse side of the same coin. However, extremes of behavior do not reflect reality and are hardly the only choices available in a free society where there is the unlimited right to think-reason and the unlimited right to express thoughts-opinions based on reason. For that reason, women in a free society will overwhelmingly dress in a manner that is attractive, that takes into account nature and feminine charms and which reflects their self-respect. This is what we overwhelmingly see in free societies: women dressed like Margaret Thatcher is more the rule than this kind of demented exception.

It is time to treat this belief-system as a mental illness. I predict that society will go in that direction in the future: people who treat beliefs as if they are fact and who attempt to impose their beliefs on others are mentally ill. Many of the clerics in Britain and elsewhere should be placed under psychiatric care.

What we are viewing is primarily an act of psychotic hostility. It's mental illness dressed as "religion".

Posted by: Frank at October 22, 2006 9:07 AM

In sharia law, a male witness is worth two female witnesses, in compensation for crimes, women get half that a man would get...

If these women were really liberated, wouldnt we be hearing from them against such inequalities, rather than only hearing from them to defend to institution that protects the inequality?

on another note...

I have started shielding my face when i come across these women, if i cant see your face, you aint seeing mine...

Liberation? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

on yet another note...

Were the KKK to start walking around cities openly...would we be expected to accept them, as after all they just have different beliefs...seems not to matter what the beliefs are! NO! They should be pointed at, laughed at, made to feel uncomfortable at least.

Whats the difference with Islam?

Ramble Over.

Posted by: MrTommyAtkins at October 22, 2006 9:20 AM

Here's the thing: these staged protest events are effective in doing two things. The first is they demonstrate to the Muslim social and political invasion forces a power and solidarity that can only embolden. The second is that these demonstrations can and often do manipulate a response from us on the other side (fear, hate, anger; etc), which is precisely their purpose. What would happen if they staged a protest and nobody came? If the media didn't cover it? If bloggers ignored it, concentrating instead on the lack of response from our various governments who are supposed to be watching out for OUR national interests, and are instead APOLOGIZING for us.

Just a thought...

Posted by: aqvik at October 22, 2006 9:33 AM

If the German government of the 1930's had arrested Hitler and put him in a mental hospital the world would not have had to suffer his mental illness. His obsessive Jew-hating was rooted in some personal problem that was projected on groups of people. The result was mass-murder. All love and hate are personal at their root. It is impossible to hate a group without the root of the behavior being personal.

If Hitler had been placed in a straight-jacket, with a bit in his mouth to prevent him from biting, and he was loaded into an ambulance and taken to a mental hospital, that would have reflected a reality that would not soon be forgotten by the German people. The response to this current challenge must be met on the basis of putting Hitler under psychiatric observation.

We are dealing with mental illness in the matter of people treating beliefs as facts and attempting
to force others to submit to their beliefs. We have been habituated to view religion as a personal matter and to protect personal rights in religion for that reason. We must view this belief-system in a different way. This belief-system is not primarily personal, and it is in its attitude to unbelievers a mental illness.

Posted by: Frank at October 22, 2006 9:34 AM

So who is the real oppressor of womens' freedom?

A. The teachings found in the Quran?

B. The teachings found in the New Testament of the Bible?

C. The teachings found in the Torah?

Does anyone need help with the answer on Jihadwatch?

Posted by: Mackie at October 22, 2006 9:47 AM

Frank by 1930 it would have been far too late to do anything about Hitler without unleashing the SA. In addition, antisemitism was linked by many germans with the WW1 loss( fault of socialist jews) and had always been a noxious thorn within the german psyche and when added to the effects of the depression upon yr average german was an explosive mixture.

What many people fail to see was that the Jews as scapegoats acted as an axis upon which to rotate the wheel of change with its Nazi spokes and it is difficult to see just how the nazis would have won without the involuntary help of the jews.

The ironic thing here is that we do NOT need a scapegoat as we already have the CAUSE of most of the world's problems:Islam. But will anyone have the testicles to do something definitive about it.

Posted by: MisIslamist at October 22, 2006 9:48 AM

Millions of UK Muslims would be overjoyed to see these awful black apparitions shipped back home... along with their Jihadist husbands and brainwashed offspring. No doubt the native British taxpayers are supporting these parasites and their families

Posted by: dennisw at October 22, 2006 9:52 AM

Asking that veils come off is the last refugee of a Trotskyite about to be voted out of office for decades of treason?

If the word arrest means stop, then its long time past to stop Jack Straw from betraying England.

Posted by: Old Atlantic at October 22, 2006 9:52 AM

I meant the German goverment of the 1920's in my post above re Hitler being placed in mental hospital.

Posted by: Frank at October 22, 2006 9:53 AM

MisIslamist-

I meant to put in 1920's. I think that at the time of Beer Hall Pusch in 1923 (I think that's German-LOL), the German government should have put Hitler in a mental hospital. I think the same should be done with the Muslim clerics that incite to violence or demand that their belief-system be treated as fact. This may seem like an imaginative approach, but it is actually a reality based approach. Folks should not be required to treat beliefs as fact. People who treat beliefs as fact are mentally ill and especially if they attempt to force others to submit to their belief system as an absolute reality-fact.

We have to look at reality here. These people are demanding that a belief-system be treated as an absolute fact. This is mental illness.

Posted by: Frank at October 22, 2006 10:02 AM

I believe these women are subjucated by their tiranic husbands. That's all I can come up with for now to explain their behavior.

Posted by: Jan Vink at October 22, 2006 10:04 AM

Frank in 1920 you probably would have succeeded as he was in none too good shape then from both the physical and the psychiatric POV. In fact he went to his first Nazi party meet as an army intelligence spy.

However if the german system was anything like ours, where you just shove them back out onto the streets if they haven't howled at the moon for a month, then it wouldn't have worked :)

Posted by: MisIslamist at October 22, 2006 10:06 AM

The viel is not part of Islamic clothing for women. In many Muslim countries it is banned while driving, working in labs, meeting MP's and certain political figures, while voting and high security places. I am with removal of the viel it is not necessary nor part of Islam. It is arab tradition.

Posted by: Shia at October 22, 2006 10:06 AM

This is a marketing gold mine. You can have this idea and make yourselves rich. T-Shirts and posters, two pictures side by side.

Women’s Liberation at the top, Muslim style, Our’s at the bottom. Two pictures on the shirts and posters side by side one of a burka clad lovely muslimia and one of a woman in a suit with a briefcase.

If you don’t like the veil, discredit it, make fun of it and they will stop wearing it, they are slaves, plain and simple. Muslims hate ridicule it hurts their feelings. You don’t know which of those women believe or can even read those signs. Bottom line they are muslim, they would not be standing there without a males permission or orders. The best thing we could do is discredit them, next would be to stop giving them air time. It would cost millions to get the amount of air time muslims get for having hurt feelings and carrying signs. If you really want to help, stand across from their rally and hold up copies of Robert’s new book. Each of you should email those pictures around and show the true face of islam to the enlightened. Include a note to checkout Jw/DW.
This is a marketing gold mine. You can have this idea and make yourselves rich. T-Shirts and posters, two pictures side by side.

Women’s Liberation at the top, Muslim style, Our’s at the bottom. Two pictures on the shirts and posters side by side one of a burka clad lovely muslimia and one of a woman in a suit with a briefcase.

If you don’t like the veil, discredit it, make fun of it and they will stop wearing it, they are slaves, plain and simple. Muslims hate ridicule it hurts their feelings. You don’t know which of those women believe or can even read those signs. Bottom line they are muslim, they would not be standing there without a males permission or orders. The best thing we could do is discredit them, next would be to stop giving them air time. It would cost millions to get the amount of air time muslims get for having hurt feelings and carrying signs. If you really want to help, stand across from their rally and hold up copies of Robert’s new book. Each of you should email those pictures around and show the true face of islam to the enlightened. Include a note to checkout Jw/DW.

This is not about a veil it is a power play. The same men who control those women are attempting to control the English press and set English policy.

Posted by: Ronin at October 22, 2006 10:14 AM

Found it! The BBC's "in-depth" coverage of that protest:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/6050956.stm

Posted by: Null at October 22, 2006 10:16 AM

Hmm I hate it when that happens (double post) sorry.

Posted by: Ronin at October 22, 2006 10:17 AM

I believe Jack Straw will cave within two weeks, maybe three.

He supported the islamists in Bosnia during the war if memory serves; so why would he be expected to act as a stalward defender of Western democracy against islamic law currently?

He helped make the English bed by stuffing it full to the breaking point with islam; now everyone has to lay in it.

Your racism courts will see to that.

Posted by: witness at October 22, 2006 10:21 AM

MisIslamist-

I remember reading that there was a German government official who did want to comite Hitler to a mental hospital in 1923. I think I read that in John Toland's excellent bio of Hitler (1976). Hitler expressed a fear of the person who proposed that.

Hitler had hysterical blindness at the end of WW1 when he was at the German military hospital near Berlin. He was also hearing voices calling him to lead Germany. (In fact Toland's bio begins with Hitler hearing the voices at the Hospital at Pasewalk near Berlin.) Toland points out that Hitler did contemplate seeking psychiatric help in 1928 because of his obsessive fears re cancer (his mother died of breast cancer). Hitler blamed the doctor (who was Jewish) for his mother's condition. He often called the Jewish people "a cancer".)

In any case, there was an official in the German government of the 1920's who openly said that Hitler was mentally ill and should be hospitalized. By the 1930's the horse was out of the barn and it was too late to stop him.

Posted by: Frank at October 22, 2006 10:23 AM

Shia what would you say about a Muslim do lived his life by one of the 3 points below?
No taqiyah please, not that your word to us can be trusted.

1) Ignoring ALL of the violent sura from the Koran and the accompanying texts and made NO attempt whatsoever and in any manner to spread the Ummah;

2) realised that Muhammad was not a perfect man but a man with faults like the rest of us and so acted accordingly and sensibly ,took the best out of the Koran while denying its more extreme measures including violence, female and kaf'r inferiority etc

3) became an apostate and converted to Christianity, Judaism or agnosticism?

In addition how would you feel if another prophet arose, be he Muslim, Christian or Jew?

Posted by: MisIslamist at October 22, 2006 10:27 AM

I wonder if the women of the West who become muslim get their clitoridectomy BEFORE marriage or AFTER marriage. I would think if they welcome the burqua and the scarf they would love to be clipped just like their middle eastern sisters in religion (cult).

I'll bet if they knew their muslim husbands liked them "smooth", they'd think twice before becoming part of the living dead.

Posted by: freewoman at October 22, 2006 10:31 AM

In America we have a saying “behind every good man is a woman” In Islam it reads “Behind every woman is a man” some male is pushing this veil issue to further an agenda, find him and it will stop. Fail to stop it and next week it will be demands for muslim only busses, one for men and yep one for women. The week after even more demands, If the British cave to this, I would simply recommend you give the muslim’s 2/3’s of your country and submit yourselves to their will, freedom or slavery, it comes down to your choice. You have already surrendered London, Yorks, Birmingham and probably a few places I never heard of.

Posted by: Ronin at October 22, 2006 10:31 AM

Freewoman... ask Mr Bean surely he would know :))

Posted by: MisIslamist at October 22, 2006 10:40 AM

MisIslamist,

I am a muslim and will continue to be one till the day i die. I am proud of my religion to me in my eyes it preaches no violence nor the killing of anyone else. To some sunnies it is all about physical jihad and to engage others. Often Shia denounce the wars during the era of the third caliph Omar. Mohammad was a prophet and the last he and his family were infallible, so was jesus, so was moses. This is my belief.

Posted by: Shia at October 22, 2006 10:45 AM

Shia..I do believe in what you say that you believe and you may well be that 4 leaf clover of the islamic world: a moderate.

By all means believe it is important to you, no one here would ever deny you that. But just have al ook at ALL of the Koran and see its violence and its dark age barbarity. READ IT ALL!! I dare you!!

Do you agree with Koran based beheadings and stonings and amputations?

Do you think that women are inferior?

Do you hate Sunnis?

Posted by: MisIslamist at October 22, 2006 10:55 AM

” some male is pushing this veil issue to further an agenda, find him and it will stop.

Ronin those males are found in mosques, the cleics, they should be banned and sent back to cessspoolstan.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at October 22, 2006 11:01 AM

I think the person on the left ist John Cleese.

Posted by: FreeSpeech at October 22, 2006 11:01 AM

Shia You are a Four Leaf clover among muslims.. now do you believe in Sharia Law? ie, stoning of women, beheadings, chopping of limbs, other wise you are juster muslim with his head in the sand. you chose to ignore the whole koran.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at October 22, 2006 11:02 AM

Shia, most of us have no problems with muslim beliefs we do draw the line when muslims attempt to change us, indoctrinate or in extreme conditions attempt to kill us. Personally, I see little differences between the different types of Islam, that is because I did not grow up in your world nor see the extremes some of your muslim brethren went to. The west does have a problem with muslims. This will continue to grow and the two cultures both being set in their ways will lead to violence.

Having tasted freedom it will be a cold day in hell before we give up the rights we have earned. It does not escape our attention that every major terrorist attack in recent memory was committed by muslims. I do not believe all muslims are bad, however, I do believe our peoples are incompatible.

Your new prophet Ahmadinejad will lead your nation into war, as quickly as he can. I have seen both Christians and Muslims die, what I have never seen is a muslim hold his hands toward heaven, smile and peaceful go to his maker. Instead they screamed horribly and rolled around in the dirt. Wherever they went or thought they were going they didn’t seem to be in a hurry to get there. I can not say if you worship a false God, I am not a cleric but I do not believe the Christian God and Allah are one in the same. As an American I support your right to believe what you will as long as your beliefs do not interfere with someone else beliefs. Now we both know where the other stands.

Posted by: Ronin at October 22, 2006 11:10 AM

l have another take on this, muslims seems to act like children, and reverse psychology is working here with Jack Straw.eg my younger sister would be a pest around my friends, and to get rid of her, l would tell her she had to stay in the room in that chair.. well she got off the chair and out of that room so fast, my friends laughed so hard. shelater used the same technique with our niece when she was same age! so you see the childish mentality these muslim are displaying. we have to treat them as children, and even laugh at them for bad behaviour, ie When that teacher was in the class room, the children should of laughted at her viel, and everyone in the school should laugh at her attempt to teach behind her curtains.. as childish as muslims seem to be, their ego is even larger.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at October 22, 2006 11:13 AM

Ronin those males are found in mosques, the cleics, they should be banned and sent back to cessspoolstan.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess

That is up to the Brits, if they want to surrender it is their call. They lose more and more of their educated youth everyday. They graduate and leave. It sounds to me like they have made their choice.

Posted by: Ronin at October 22, 2006 11:14 AM

MisIslamist,

I can only speak of my own opinion, I have read the Koran in ARABIC it's original context. You see the arabs lived in very dark ages they praised those whom were warriors and feard no one, the koran was even used for poetic challenge while praising gods, there are many ways to preach the Koran and different forms of context. It does not preach violence most of the things you read is about past wars that happened. Calling upon muslims to defend themselves from non-believers. Stoning has stopped a very long time ago and do you know what it actually takes for that to happen? Everyone deserves a chance and many times people are forigven, it needs witnesses the islamic law is very very difficult for anyone to be whipped or stoned. I do not know the entire law, but i will search with whom i follow Ayatollah sistani.

Posted by: Shia at October 22, 2006 11:20 AM

In a way, this is good. Let the world continue to see what these people are really like. Perhaps it'll change some minds.

I used to feel sorry for women like this. But even though it's incomprehensible to me, I guess they *want* to live this way. I say let 'em - but back in their countries of origin, and not in our free societies.

Posted by: Mo at October 22, 2006 11:21 AM

The suggestions of deportation or repatriation are rather silly.

Where would one deport native born British citizens who wear the niqab?

Suggestions such as that made by Ronin are much more well thought out.

British women standing opposite them in the T-shirts he suggested, or similary worded posters, would be pretty impressive.

Any British women here today?

Posted by: PRCS at October 22, 2006 11:21 AM

Remember this loathsome muslimah

http://illustratedpig.blogspot.com/2006/03/thank-you-muslimah.html

Posted by: shiva at October 22, 2006 11:26 AM

A picture tells a thousand words, right? Well, one word comes to mind as I look at these women holding these signs....I R O N Y !

Posted by: champ at October 22, 2006 11:27 AM

traeh:

Very astute of you. Indeed many burqua-clad women wear makeup in excess, as if to compensate for the "disappearance" of their bodies. It's often the subject of sermonizing by clerics.
The women also paint their nails an intense, bloody red, which makes a spooky contrast with the black of the veils.
The French call these women "Belphegor," after a popular movie (cartoon?)character

Posted by: ovidius_naso at October 22, 2006 11:32 AM

"During this stay at Pasewalk, Hitler
experienced a "vision" -- perhaps induced hypnotically -- inwhich he heard voices entreating him to become the savior of
Germany (or so Hitler later claimed)".-a reference made to Hitler's "visions" in toland's opening of the bio of Hitler (1976).

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:CdU5w5iJaUoJ:www.mindcontrolforums.com/mindnet/mn199.htm+hitler,+toland,+%22visions%22,+pasewalk&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3

MisIslamist-

Hitler often referenced these "visions" he had at Pasewalk in conversations with his inner Nazi circle. Hitler was treated by a psychiatrist (Dr. Foster)at Pasewalk. Forster mysteriously comitted suicide in 1938. Toland's book begins with Hitler's claim of "visions".

Hitler and Mohammad had-have much in common.

Posted by: Frank at October 22, 2006 11:33 AM

Re: O'Reilly,

Probably because he has already made his mind up, along with President Bush, that Islam has been hijacked.

Someone posted here, recently, that he refuses to read the Qur'an.

It's hard to get through to someone with a closed mind, but I'll send him a message, at the link provided, requesting that he invite RS on his show.

Posted by: PRCS at October 22, 2006 11:35 AM

PRCS except for the religious differences it wouldn’t be any different from the spiked hair and tattoo looks. I know we both realize this is not an attempt to show individuality. I can tell you one thing, If I were a criminal living in England I would wear that outfit at every crime. I would also change into my street clothes and protest right along side my newfound muslim friends. I would scream my demands to allow the veil as loudly as I could, then I would commit another crime wearing the same outfit. No PC policeman would dare check under each veil and no muslim male would let them, female police of not.

I have several issues with the veil, it is not a choice of dress, and it is indoctrination. It is a safety issue, a symbol of a violent, regressive lifestyle and an attempt to intimidate. If the Amish in the US demanded everyone park their cars and drive buggies we would simply laugh, why do we attempt to be sensitive to muslims? The simple answer is fear, the British need to decide, cave in or nip it in the bud. Will there be uproar and riots, yep it is quarantined, it comes with the territory.

Muslims remind me of the old vampire movies. The vampires would stand outside the door waiting to consume those inside. They could not enter until someone invited them in. Well the door is open and not just in the UK it is a global problem. If the Brits keep tip toeing around and holding hands, they are lost.

Posted by: Ronin at October 22, 2006 11:39 AM

Ronin,

Yep.

Like I said, I liked the T-shirt idea; because it's do-able, it's easy, and it's in THEIR faces.

Deportations ain't gonna happen for wearing a veil or anything else that isn't illegal.

Posted by: PRCS at October 22, 2006 11:49 AM

Monkeywho

I saw my first veiled woman the other day, after being in the States for 20 years.
Do you think it's going to take another 20 before I see a second one? Nope. This is increasing exponentially, I'm afraid. It's a political statement these people are making: sumbmit to our ways.

Posted by: ovidius_naso at October 22, 2006 11:53 AM

Of cause the veil does have its uses think of all the yellow crescents the country wont have to buy for them to sew on there clothes so that they can be recognized when the balloon goes up. As a Brit this whole affair saddens me this could have been avoided years ago, if we had only insisted that they conform, when there mothers came here 30 years ago. Since the last great war the world has been obsessed with Human rights. The U.N. Signed a Human Rights Charter in 1947, signed by the way by Saudi Arabia the only Arab country to do so. What should also have been signed at the same time was a Charter of Human Obligations. This would have added balance. The ten commandments are nothing more than statements of the obligations people need to follow to live in safety in society. The veil is not a threat in a closed Islamic society, but in a open western society it most certainly is, non verbal facial expression and body language are important for communication. We instinctively know how a person will react and we tailor our reactions accordingly. If we cannot deduce how the person will, and is reacting towards us, because we can't pick up the subtle body language, because that person is clad in a bin liner, we instinctively put up our guard, we talk in a monotone to that person, or try to avoid them even. The veil does not aid integration, it is also a security threat along with the flowing robes. It is not essential for Islamic women to wear the veil Kemal Ataturk banned it in Turkey in the 1920s. So banning the veil and the long robes is doable, it only needs the will from the Government. The veil will only really come on the political agenda when several of these walking Coca Cola bottles blow themselves up in public and the aboriginal population start to demand it. I think it was Arthur C Clarke who describe the last century as the century of sorrows, with all these muslim demands that a modern society cannot agree too, we are heading for a terrible confrontation. This century that we are living in will be called the century of HORRORS.

Posted by: Holger Dansker at October 22, 2006 11:57 AM

ovidius_naso, I saw one yesterday, black dress, veil and camo t-shirt, I loved that entire muslim/redneck, hunting theme. I'm not sure but I think it is deer season. Who knew they hunted? I saw a few men wearing camo but they didn't talk to her and I do not think there were together.

Posted by: Ronin at October 22, 2006 11:57 AM

The BBC4 has a lively discussion this week on the Any Questions program. About the view row. Worth a listen.

Posted by: Borg at October 22, 2006 12:01 PM

'Stoning has stopped a very long time ago and do you know what it actually takes for that to happen?' ~ shia

Really?

Stoning under sharia in Nigeria, 2006:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2202111.stm

Stoning under sharia in Saudi Arabia 2006:
http://www.omdurman.org/sharia.html

Stoning under sharia in Somalia 2006:
http://www.womenwarpeace.org/somalia/somalia.htm

Stoning under sharia in Iran 2006:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200608/NAT20060823c.html

Something is Not right with your statement...

Posted by: Gary at October 22, 2006 12:03 PM

Frank

"His obsessive Jew-hating was rooted in some personal problem that was projected on groups of people. The result was mass-murder. All love and hate are personal at their root. It is impossible to hate a group without the root of the behavior being personal."

Maybe.
However, Hitler wouldn't have been so spectacularly successful if anti-semitism had not been so deeply rooted in German culture--and in continental culture at large. It's a well-know, undisputed historical fact.

Posted by: ovidius_naso at October 22, 2006 12:06 PM

I have to side with Mr. Straw and Bill Maher: this is an elitist and devisive practice. Have some respect for my country and culture. Wear whatever symbols of your faith or superstitions, be it scientology, christianinty, judaism or islam. But when we are talking do not hide behind a barrier that indicates you are superior and that I am not to be trusted to control myself if I see your face.

Posted by: amana39 at October 22, 2006 12:06 PM

British Islam. "British" Islam. Islam, but British. Whad'ya reckon, Jack? No contradiction there, huh? Reap it baby.

Posted by: Domestos at October 22, 2006 12:09 PM

ovidius_naso-

That's a good point. I'll think about it. You are right.

Posted by: Frank at October 22, 2006 12:13 PM

Shia: I can only speak of my own opinion, I have read the Koran in ARABIC it's original context.

There we go with the religious one-upsmanship. Only those who have read the Quran in ARABIC, can possibly understand the depths of its truths. Are muslims who read it in Arabic somehow 'special to Allah' because they are the only ones with perfect understanding? Well, pat myself on the back. Now aint that swell. The 'perfect' muslim, with 'perfect' understanding, of the 'perfect' Allah brought to us by the 'perfect' man and Prophet Mohammad. The rest of us 'im-perfects' are stumbling around in the dark. Inquiring swami's want to know how many muslims can read ARABIC? I'm sure there are a great many. If you got them all together in one place you could probably fill a large room or tent. But what of the jillions of illiterate or ARABIC deficient muslims? Are they lesser muslims because Allah has not blessed them with Arabic abilities? If Allah really cared about the teeming masses of illiterate muslims, he would see to it that they all had Arabic Qurans, and could read and understand them. But Allah knows best. He has chosen to keep the majority of muslims un-enlightened. Just do the prayers, pay the tax (jakat), bow in homage and renounce agreements with Jews. These are true believers, according to Allah. A 'true believer', is not necessarilly a 'truth knower'. Allah has withheld 'true knowledge', to anyone who cant read the Quran in Arabic, and then, it's debateable, if the reader is getting this true knowledge or not. Not all muslims are equal in thier intellectual capabilities.
So who is it that really understands the Quran? Jihadists from Somalia? Or Sudan, or Indonesia, or Africa? The rest dont understand it at all. They are only muslim wannabes or infidels.
'You cant get the truth from the confines of your own religion'. This is especially true of Islam. Allah has seen to it...

Posted by: duh_swami at October 22, 2006 12:13 PM

duh swami, do not forget about islams new prophet ahmadinejad (war be unto him), he claims God speaks to him, mohammad only spoke with a single angel, By placing himself over the prophet mohammad the new prophet ahmadinejad (war be onto him) violates the shiria and should be condemned to death as an apostate.

Posted by: Ronin at October 22, 2006 12:20 PM

Ronin
The one I saw broke my heart in a way. Not only was she wearing the face veil, but no skin was showing. She wore hiking boots and black gloves. Sitting next to her was her hubby, with the skullcap and pious Muslim beard, and a possessive hand over one of her knees. Their baby was in a stroller nearby, and she glanced back lovingly at her. It was a girl, and I felt so sorry for that baby girl and wondered what it must be like to see your mother dressed that way in public, not being able to see her face, so essential in the way we relate to each other.
One more detail: The couple were black Americans.

Posted by: ovidius_naso at October 22, 2006 12:31 PM

"Shia: I can only speak of my own opinion, I have read the Koran in ARABIC it's original context."

If Allah really were a god, he would have blessed Mahammed with the ability to speak in tongues. Acts 2:6

Posted by: Pelayo at October 22, 2006 12:35 PM

Ronin...I dont doubt that 'Beasty Boy', as I call him, will reveal himself to be Mahdi. 'I was among you all this time and you knew it not'.
Maybe not, but since Mahdi has been promised, and 'we' know no supernatural figure is going to show up,
I think they will appoint someone. Could be Beasty, but it could just as easilly be Michael Moore.
Moore on a white horse, leading a charge against infidel crusaders and occupiers. 'Mahdi-Moore of Arabia', the movie. I can hardly wait...

Posted by: duh_swami at October 22, 2006 12:40 PM

swami, when did i say that arabic and? But when did i say that you can only understand it in arabic? I simply referd it to it's original context.

I am starting to wonder maybe the Americans want war just as much as bin laden does. I have seen people here bring me verses from Al bukhari a sunni Imam and claim the koran has said this. Ronin ahmedinejad is not even worth our prophet's foot and i am sure he knows this too. G.W.Bush has claimed god spoke to him lol.

People here say islam will allow stoning, beheadings blah blah blah. I wonder what Abu-ghuraib was? You did that to "terrorists" when at one point as i have mentioned several times before you funded these people, If we wish to side with the "democratic" United States how long will it take untill you turn against us?

Did you forget that the U.S has ignored bin laden since 1989 when they could have taken him out if he was a real threat. Your government gave these jihadists green cards, funding, mosques in the U.S now you want to blame Iran and other muslims? Don't be arrogant. I have mentioned several times a true muslim wants nothing but peace, if you insist our religion is violent, hey go to iraq let's see where you get too.

Posted by: Shia at October 22, 2006 12:44 PM

'Arrest Jack Staw'... and why don't they?

As a British citizen they have the right to perform a citizen's arrest if they believe he has or is about to commit a crime. Who can forget that moment when the stunned Zimbabwean president Mugabe was ambushed by three sausage jockeys standing infront of his limousine wielding documents of his alleged crimes before Peter Tatchell finally moving in for the citizens arrest. A dishevelled Peter later told us that he had broken a fingernail in the ensuing scuffle.

Mr Sraw would have been a more obliging character in his own apprehension, never wanting to cause offence to his constituents would of taken himself down to the nick.
Now these moderate yes moderate Muslims (they do not ask for Mr Straw to be beheaded) should consider the consequences of victimisation and wrongful arrest in these litigious times.

Posted by: western infidel at October 22, 2006 12:47 PM

This is from Ask Imam.com

http://www.islam.tc/ask-imam/view.php?q=6233

6233 2002-07-25

The question is about the veil

1. Covering the face is as important and necessary as the rest of the body. The face is the focal point of attraction. So, when the rest of the body is to be covered, obviously the focal point, the face, needs to be covered as well.

And Allah Ta'ala Knows Best

Mufti Muhammad Kadwa
FATWA DEPT.

___________________________________

OK Mr/Ms Shia, put that in your hash pipe and smoke it.

From Mr/Ms Shia: "The viel(sic) is not part of Islamic clothing for women."

You are a liar!

Posted by: Pelayo at October 22, 2006 12:47 PM

Here is a good essay from a former Muslim about reading the Koan in Arabic.

Shia: Read this article. I don't care if you read the Koran in its ORIGINAL ARABIC form.

Ibn Warraq on How to Debate a Muslim:
Muslims in general have a tendency to disarm any criticisms of Islam and in particular the Koran by asking if the critic has read the Koran in the original Arabic, as though all the difficulties of their Sacred Text will somehow disappear once the reader has mastered the holy language and has direct experience, aural and visual, of the very words of God, to which no translation can do justice.

However, the majority of Muslims are not Arabs or Arabic speaking peoples. The non-Arabic speaking nations of Indonesia with a population of 197 million, Pakistan with 133 million, Iran with 62 million, Turkey with 62 million, India with a Muslim population of about 95 million, out- number by far the total number of native Arabic speakers in about thirty countries in the world estimated as 150 million. Many educated Muslims whose native tongue is not Arabic do learn it in order to read the Koran, but then again the vast majority do not understand Arabic, even though many do learn parts of the Koran by heart without understanding a word.

In other words, the majority of Muslims have to read the Koran in translation in order to understand it. Contrary to what one might think, there have been translations of the Koran into, for instance, Persian since the tenth or eleventh century, and there are translations into Turkish and Urdu. The Koran has now been translated into over a hundred languages, many of them by Muslims themselves, despite some sort of disapproval from the religious authorities.[1]

Even for contemporary Arabic –speaking peoples, reading the Koran is far from being a straightforward matter. The Koran is putatively (in fact it is very difficult to decide exactly what the language of the Koran is) written in what we call Classical Arabic (CA), but modern Arab populations, leaving aside the problem of illiteracy in Arab countries [2], do not speak, read, or write, let alone think in Classical Arabic (CA). We are confronted with the phenomenon of diglossia [3], that is to say, a situation where two varieties of the same language live side by side. The two variations are high and low. High Arabic is sometimes called Modern Literary Arabic or Modern Standard Arabic, and is learned through formal education in school like Latin or Sanskrit, and would be used in sermon, university lecture, news broadcast and for mass media purposes. Low Arabic or Colloquial Arabic is a dialect which native speakers acquire as a mother tongue, and is used at home conversing with family and friends, and is also used in radio or television soap opera. But as Kaye points out, "the differences between many colloquials and the classical language are so great that a fallah (= farmer or peasant) who had never been to school could hardly understand more than a few scattered words and expressions in it without great difficulty. One could assemble dozens of so-called Arabs (fallahin or peasants) in a room, who have never been exposed to the classical language, so that not one could properly understand the other." [4]

Though some scholars do allow for some change and decay, they paint a totally misleading picture of the actual linguistic situation in modern Arabic speaking societies. These scholars imply that anyone able to read a modern Arabic newspaper should have no difficulties with the Koran or any classical Arabic text. They seem totally insensitive "to the evolution of the language, to changes in the usage and meaning of terms over the very long period and in the very broad area in which Classical Arabic has been used." [5] Anyone who has lived in the Middle East in recent years will know that the language of the press is at best semi-literary [6], and certainly simplified as far as structure and vocabulary are concerned. We can discern what would be called grammatical errors from a Classical Arabic point of view in daily newspapers or on television news. This semi-literary language is highly artificial, and certainly no one thinks in it. For an average middle class Arab it would take considerable effort to construct even the simplest sentence, let alone talk, in Classical Arabic. The linguist Pierre Larcher has written of the "considerable gap between Medieval Classical Arabic and Modern Classical Arabic [or what I have been calling Modern Literary Arabic], certain texts written in the former are today the object of explanatory texts in the latter." He then adds in a footnote that he has in his library, based on this model, an edition of the Risala of Shafi`i (died 204/820) which appeared in a collection with the significant title "Getting closer to the Patrimony." [7]

As Kaye puts it, "In support of the hypothesis that modern standard Arabic is ill-defined is the so-called ‘mixed’ language or ‘Inter-Arabic’ being used in the speeches of, say, President Bourguiba of Tunisia, noting that very few native speakers of Arabic from any Arab country can really ever master the intricacies of Classical Arabic grammar in such a way as to extemporaneously give a formal speech in it." [8]

Pierre Larcher [9] has pointed out that wherever you have a linguistic situation where two varieties of the same language coexist, you are also likely to get all sorts of linguistic mixtures, leading some linguists to talk of triglossia. Gustav Meiseles [10] even talks of quadriglossia: between Literary Arabic and Vernacular Arabic, he distinguishes a Sub-Standard Arabic and an Educated Spoken Arabic. Still others speak of pluri- or multi- or polyglossia, viewed as a continuum. [11]

The style of the Koran is difficult, totally unlike the prose of today, and the Koran would be largely incomprehensible without glossaries, indeed entire commentaries. In conclusion, even the most educated of Arabs will need some sort of a translation if he or she wished to make sense of that most gnomic, elusive and allusive of holy scriptures, the Koran.

You are asked aggressively, "do you know Arabic?" Then you are told triumphantly, "You have to read the Koran in the original Arabic to understand it fully." Non-Muslims, Western freethinkers and atheists are usually reduced to sullen silence with these Muslim tactics; they indeed become rather coy and self-defensive when it comes to criticism of Islam; they feebly complain “who am I to criticise Islam? I do not know any Arabic.” And yet they are quite happy to criticise Christianity. How many Western freethinkers and atheists know Hebrew? How many even know what the language of Esra chapter 4 verses 6-8 is? Or in what language the New Testament was written? Of course, Muslims are also free in their criticism of the Bible and Christianity without knowing a word of Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek.

So let me summarise: You do not need to know Arabic to criticise Islam or the Koran. Paul Kurtz does not know Arabic but he did a great job on Islam in his book The Transcendental Temptation. [12] You only need a critical sense, critical thought and scepticism. Second, there are translations of the Koran, by Muslims themselves, so Muslims cannot claim that there has been deliberate tampering of the text by infidel translators. Third, the majority of Muslims are not Arabs, and are not Arabic speakers. So a majority of Muslims also have to rely on translations. Finally, the language of the Koran is some form of Classical Arabic [13] which is totally different from the spoken Arabic of today, so even Muslim Arabs have to rely on translations to understand their holy text. Arabic is a Semitic language related to Hebrew and Aramaic, and is no easier but also no more difficult to translate than any other language. Of course, there are all sorts of difficulties with the language of the Koran, but these difficulties have been recognized by Muslim scholars themselves. The Koran is indeed a rather opaque text but it is opaque to everyone. Even Muslim scholars do not understand a fifth of it.
Read it all here:
http://challenging-islam.org/articles/warraq-debate-muslims.htm

Posted by: Johnathan at October 22, 2006 12:48 PM

My god i've never seen such ignorant people in my life. Paylo again Mufti is usually from saudi arabia of Wahabi-sect.

Jonathon, i simply referd that i read it in it's original context and did not see it as evil, this is my opinion again, if you think islam is there to take over the world lol. then good luck to you. What this man has written is up to him and he is expressing his thought and opinion, does it mean he is right? No, does it mean he is wrong? Maybe not, it is his opinion that means very very little.

Posted by: Shia at October 22, 2006 12:55 PM

Shia:
I think you have read the Koran as a Muslim. Try reading it as an "unbeliever" or "Infidel". It is a death warrant. You may not act in its intolerant spirit but many Muslims have in the past and continue to act that way today. The Halloween type characters who appear in the above picture are manifestations of that hatred to me, an unbeliever.

Posted by: Briars at October 22, 2006 1:07 PM

Shia my buddy (others don’t like me calling you a friend). I watched O’Reilly ask President Bush about God talking to him and President Bush set him straight, he does not receive personal messages from God almighty but does attempt to live by and base his decisions on his principals, something I can respect. President Ahmadinejad clearly confessed to the world that he had an inside line. Others confirmed his newfound status of prophet when they claimed he hypnotized the entire body of the UN when he spoke no eyes blinked and a light was above his head, what a load of crap. That story btw was widely reported in your press, not so much in ours. If your countrymen need a new prophet you can do better. Pick any sheepherder at random and I can bet they never hurt anyone, attempted to build nukes, or held hostages for 444 days. To me it is a no brainier, dump your new prophet and pick a better man, almost anyone will do.

With that my friend (who cares what others say) I am off to enjoy the day. Be well and do me one favor. Ask yourself why any one would follow an old mullah who claims to know all when they could read for themselves and make up their own minds. Your claims of we have islam all wrong work well for you but it doesn’t explain the other 1.2 billion muslims.

Posted by: Ronin at October 22, 2006 1:09 PM

Shia... the idea that reading the Quran in ARABIC makes for superior understanding, did not originate from you only. I have read and heard that numerous times from numerous muslims. It's like saying, 'a Christian cant understand the Bible unless he can read the old testiment in Hebrew.

Do not confuse 'Americans' with the US government.

The American people do not ususlly volunteer to finacially support a war, especially an unpopular one. Support of military adventures are the responsibility of Congress. They allocate money from a variety of sources including Income Tax. Once the Gov gets the money, the American people have no say in where or how it is spent. ABU Graib was a Government run institution. All governments use bodilly punishments to law violators. Sharia law or secular. This does not make it right, but when you deal with governments , abuse of some kind is what you get. Islam is not a Government, but it is a government wanna be. What kinds of conditions would you expect to find in Saudi, prisons or those of Iraq, Iran, Mogadishu. We have heard what Saddams Abu-Graib was like pre-Americans. Not very pretty. The FACT that Islamic literature supports violence is abundantly proovable. The 'religion of Peace' BS falls on deaf ears of those who know better...

Posted by: duh_swami at October 22, 2006 1:12 PM

I think that maybe burkas worn in this manner are actually already illegal - which hoodies etc are not. This is because they might count as political uniforms and the 1936 Public Order Act made it an offence to wear political uniforms and to use threatening and abusive words. I do not have access to the details but maybe some one could check the possibility out - I have not seen the point taken in any paper.
Posted by: philiph35

Philip.. Are you British? If so, does the Law provide ro pribate citizens to bring a lawsuit against the government for failure to enforce its own laws which obviously should be applied equally.

I can only imgine what they'd do if a bunch of ManU or Liverpool fans were gathered there.. headscarves in Team Colours wrapped around their faces.. holding such threatening sign panels. We all know the answer. They'll treat the REAL ENGLISH a LOT WORSE than these mufti interlopers.

Posted by: germaninamerica at October 22, 2006 1:14 PM

StillFedUp you should not compare iraqis and muslims with animals as itis a grave injustice to animals. l compare islamofacists as "human monsters". Shia do you even read the news, see the killings of muslims on non-muslims, the heheadings of people? you claim to be a moderate muslim, why don't we see muslims in a rage over the injustice of killing in Dafur? the killing even shites and sunni muslims? no you dont hear of this, because you are too busy blaming Americans, Jews, other assorted non muslims.. why dont you look in the mirror, and you will find the one to blame, and the one to stop this insane muslim insanity.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at October 22, 2006 1:14 PM

They may be doing the UK a favour. Highlighting the problem and hopefully forcing a hamstrung government to do something about it. The scorn on their faces doesn't show but the hate in their eyes does.

Posted by: Dsinc at October 22, 2006 1:30 PM

Shia, if you disagree with the opinion of AskImam call or write them a letter; I'm certain that they would like to hear your opinion. If you wish, I can add many more examples of the veil being an Islamic requirement from other sources.

Madrasah In’aamiyya, Camperdown, Kwa Zulu Natal (South Africa).

Drop them a letter:

Madrasah In’aamiyya, Camperdown
P. O. Box 39
Camperdown 3720
Kwa Zulu Natal – South Africa
Tel: +27 31 7851239
(Direct line to the Darul Ifta from 10 AM to 1 PM – SA time)
Fax: +27 31 7851091

Posted by: Pelayo at October 22, 2006 1:37 PM

uh, to "charles martel"

I have been posting here on JW/DW for three years under the handle Charles Martel and would appreciate it if you could muster an alternative nick to avoid confusion.

Regards,

CM

Posted by: Charles Martel at October 22, 2006 1:40 PM

I for one am tired of hearing about the poor mistreated women of Islam.

How about Um Nidal who raised eight sons to become splodeydopes in Gaza?

How about the mother who cut her own daughter's throat for shaming the family?

What about Naseem's not-so-carefully-hidden little barbs of Islamic triumphalism?

Not all Muslim women are innocent victims, many of them are enthusiastic collaborators in the the suppression of the kaffir.

The veil is a sign of FEMALE MUSLIM AGGRESSION AND REFUSAL TO ASSIMILATE, pure and simple. It's a message to the free women of the west that they will try and wrap their Islamic chains around OUR necks and the necks of our daughters.

Wearing the veil is not a matter of freedom of religion, it is on the same level as openly wearing a swastika during WWII, and with the same political meaning-we are going to destroy you!

Posted by: treehugger at October 22, 2006 1:49 PM

Ronin,

Everyone in shiasm has a choice, there is no certain ayatollah to follow and if you read enough and attempt certain exams you can be an ayatollah too. You can even not follow an ayatollah i.e Ahmed chalibi a secular shia who still has respect for Ayatollah sistani. I do not agree for his secular rule in Iraq but he is good as well by allowing people to believe freely.

I seperate religion from politics, Politics involve lying, dishonour of truth and religion is pure it forbids lying. Why should mix something pure like religion with dirt like politics. HOWEVER western politics is what people adapt to today therefore we should abide by it even if we have to put mullah's in the government to make it religious and communicate with the world.

Peyalo, If it was not a Saudi funded school maybe i would drop them a letter if they stopped calling me a rejector of Islam.

Zena, hello again. I do blame our ignorance a lot, I gave credit to the Americans quiet a few times but maybe you look at the glass half empty rather then half full. You want to stop jihad? just get out of the Middle East go back to the U.S live there mind your own business and we will deal with things by ourselves. If you think we cannot deal with things by ourselves then what concern is that to you? who asked for help? who asked for you to be heros? Yes and Yes again i blame the U.S Government for funding Saddam Hussain, here is a picture too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Saddam_rumsfeld.jpg

Posted by: Shia at October 22, 2006 1:54 PM

"Mohammad was a prophet and the last he and his family were infallible, so was jesus, so was moses. This is my belief".-Shia

That's fine as long as you don't treat beliefs as facts, or require that unbelievers accept your belief as a fact, or treat unbelievers as bad because they don't believe what you believe. As the old saying goes, "Curb your dogmas". I don't think Muhammad or anyone else was/is infallible. I think Mohammad was as mentally ill as Hitler-who also had "Divine visions" when he was at the military hospital at Pasewalk in 1918. Those "visions" ultimately led him to destroy Germany. It is my right to think-reason as I choose, not to impose my beliefs on others, nor have beliefs imposed on me.

These are my opinions. I have no right to compel you to my belief re Mohammad. However, people are getting fed-up with Muslims demanding and behaving as if their beliefs are facts and attempting to impose them on unbelievers. It's mental illness.

Posted by: Frank at October 22, 2006 1:59 PM

Deport them?

Repatriate them?

Send them back to where they came from?

Hate to tell you, but a lot of the women who wear the niqab in the U.K. are born and raised white British reverts.

To where should they be sent?

They're just jerking everyone's chain.
Posted by: PRCS

easy.. they have a heritage that ties them to one ME country or another. The rest go to the highest bidder. If they look decent that is likely to be someone in SOWdi a**rabia.. I really don't care where to as long as they are OUTTA HERE!

Posted by: germaninamerica at October 22, 2006 2:01 PM

Oh, and regarding Shia's comments about Abu Ghraib, see the following article from the Telegraph. Seems that even at our worst, we Americans are still better then Iraqis in how we treat our prisoners.

"Someone was shouting 'Please help us, we want the human rights officers, we want the Americans to come back'," he said". A bit ironic, no?

Tortured screams ring out as Iraqis take over Abu Ghraib

By Ali Saber in Baghdad and Gethin Chamberlain
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/09/10/wirq10.xml

The notorious Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad is at the centre of fresh abuse allegations just a week after it was handed over to Iraqi authorities, with claims that inmates are being tortured by their new captors.

US soldier Lynndie England was convicted on six charges of abusing Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib
Staff at the jail say the Iraqi authorities have moved dozens of terrorist suspects into Abu Ghraib from the controversial Interior Ministry detention centre in Jadriyah, where United States troops last year discovered 169 prisoners who had been tortured and starved.

An independent witness who went into Abu Ghraib this week told The Sunday Telegraph that screams were coming from the cell blocks housing the terrorist suspects. Prisoners released from the jail this week spoke of routine torture of terrorism suspects and on Wednesday, 27 prisoners were hanged in the first mass execution since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime.

Conditions in the rest of the jail were grim, with an overwhelming stench of excrement, prisoners crammed into cells for all but 20 minutes a day, food rations cut to just rice and water and no air conditioning.

Some of the small number of prisoners who remained in the jail after the Americans left said they had pleaded to go with their departing captors, rather than be left in the hands of Iraqi guards.

"The Americans were better than the Iraqis. They treated us better," said Khalid Alaani, who was held on suspicion of involvement in Sunni terrorism.

Abu Ghraib became synonymous with abuse after shocking pictures were published in 2004 showing prisoners being tortured and humiliated, galvanising opposition to the US presence in Iraq.

The witness gained access to the prison just days after the Americans formally handed over control to the Iraqi authorities on Sept 1.

Inside the 100-yard long cell block the smell of excrement was overpowering. Four to six prisoners shared each of the 12ft by 15ft cells along either side and the walls were smeared with filth. The cell block was patrolled by guards who carried long batons and shouted angrily at the prisoners to stand up.

Access to the part of the prison containing terrorism suspects was denied, but from that block came the sound of screaming. The screaming continued for a long time.

"I am sure someone was being beaten, they were screaming like they were being hit," the witness reported. "I felt scared, I was asking what was happening in the terrorist section.

"I heard shouting, like someone had a hot iron on their body, screams. The officer said they were just screaming by themselves. I was hearing the screams throughout the visit."

The witness said that even in the thieves' section prisoners were being treated badly. "Someone was shouting 'Please help us, we want the human rights officers, we want the Americans to come back'," he said.

Prisoners interviewed in the presence of their jailers said they were frightened for their safety. They complained that chicken and milk had been cut from their rations, leaving them on rice and water. They also complained about the oppressive heat.

Outside the prison, relatives of some of the inmates said they were being tortured by their captors. One woman, who gave her name as Omsaad, said: "My son Saad [who was arrested in Fallujah as a suspected insurgent] said he is being tortured by the Iraqis to confess the name of his leader. I met my son and he told me they were being treated badly by the Iraqis."

Haleem Aleulami, who was released from the jail last week, three weeks after being arrested in Ramadi for carrying a pistol in his car, said the Americans had treated him better when they ran the jail. He claimed that visits from the International Red Cross staff had dried up and accused local human rights workers of being members of Shia groups who turned a blind eye to problems in the jail.

"The people are Iraqis and they are members of the Sciri and al Dawa parties. They have a good relationship with the leaders of the jail and they keep quiet," he said. The guards swore at the ordinary prisoners, he said, but those in the terrorist section were treated more brutally.

"The guards were swearing at us, but in the terrorist section they were beating them. I heard it all the time. Everyone knows what is happening."

And Khalid Alaani, who was also picked up in Ramadi suspected of involvement in Sunni terrorism, said: "We preferred the Americans. We asked to move with them to Baghdad airport because we knew the treatment would be changed because we know what the Iraqis are. When the Americans left everything changed."

Staff at the jail said that the prisoners were allowed out from their cells for only 15 to 20 minutes a day because of the danger from the regular mortar attacks. They are no longer allowed access to the main hall where the Americans had allowed them to watch television and the room is now reserved for the use of officers and guards. Staff explained that the air conditioning in the cell blocks had broken, although it was working in their quarters.

One officer, Capt Ali Abdelzaher, said: "We have a problem with the financing for the food, not like the Americans, and there is a technical problem with the air conditioning."

Capt Abdelzaher also confirmed that a number of inmates had been transferred from the Jadriyah detention centre, along with their guards and interrogators.

Graphic stories of abuse at that previously secret facility emerged after US soldiers found 169 prisoners showing signs of torture last November.

Most of the prisoners held by the Americans at Abu Ghraib were either released in recent months or transferred to a new £32 million detention centre at Camp Cropper near Baghdad International Airport.

Yesterday, the International Red Cross confirmed that its visits to the prison had been suspended since January 2005 on security grounds.

Posted by: treehugger at October 22, 2006 2:04 PM

Donald Rumsfeld meeting Saddam on 19 December – 20 December 1983. Rumsfeld visited again on 24 March 1984; the same day the UN released a report that Iraq had used mustard gas and tabun nerve agent against Iranian troops. The NY Times reported from Baghdad on 29 March 1984, that "American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with Iraq and the U.S., and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been established in all but name.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq-iran_war

Posted by: Shia at October 22, 2006 2:08 PM

Mmmm...Shia, I don't think it wise to believe everything you read on Wikipedia. From my understanding, people can go in and change everything.

Posted by: freewoman at October 22, 2006 2:15 PM

Ready for the trash man

http://illustratedpig.blogspot.com/2006/06/politically-incorrect-guide-to-garbage.html

Posted by: shiva at October 22, 2006 2:23 PM

shia,

You have described yourself as a follower of sistani, so could you please explain your own understanding of what is "najis"?. I ask in reference to:

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5774

an extract:

"But Ayatollah Sistani is an irridentist Shi’ite cleric who believes in najis—one of the more despicable belief systems in all of Islam which imposes ugly restrictions on “infidels” due to their supposed physical and spiritual “impurity” [I have written about najis here, here, and here]. Or you can go to his own website, and then as my colleague Hugh Fitzgerald notes,

“If you click on “Muslim Laws” on the left, and then, once a list comes up, click on “najis things,” you will get a list—#84—and if you then go a little further, and click on the menu where, among those unclean things, the “kafir” (which is to say, the Unbeliever, that is to say—You and I) you will get a further discussion of how, in the wonderful, “moderate” Islam of the al-Sistani variety, the Unbeliever, the Infidel, the Kafir (guilty of “kufr” or “ingratitude” for failing to receive the Revelation of the Last of the Prophets in the right, accepting, submissive way) is viewed.”

And this is what Sistani writes about gays:

His Eminence, Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani, the supreme religious authority for Shi’ite Msulims in Iraq and worldwide, decrees that gays and lesbians should be killed in the worst manner possible, according to this news article from a London-based gay rights group. A rapid search through Sistani’s official website turns up a page, translated as:

“Q: What is the judgement on sodomy and lesbianism? A: “Forbidden. Those involved in the act should be punished. In fact, sodomites should be killed in the worst manner possible.” Thus opines the Shi’ite cleric who was nominated by Iraqis for the 2005 Nobel Peace prize."

?

Thank you.

Posted by: del at October 22, 2006 2:23 PM

This is why I get so upset and hateful when I see muslim trolls come on this site to try and distract people from the anti-Jihad cause!
The latest one is called "Shia".
Posted by: americaningermany

But they are so useful here.. They teach us their rhetorical tricks and they expose their mindset and their general deception to us. They don't even see what they are doing. They are born that way.

Posted by: germaninamerica at October 22, 2006 2:25 PM

They might as well wear a swastika on their arm as a burqa.
http://www.strangepolitics.com/content/item/12434.html

Posted by: Carolyn2 at October 22, 2006 2:28 PM

Shia, you have successfully hijacked this discussion about repression of women in Islamdom as examplified by the veil. I have challenged you assertion that the veil is not required in Islam. All you can do is claim that it is a Saudi/Wahabbi thing. I presume you are telling me that you realize that you have lost the argument.

Posted by: Pelayo at October 22, 2006 2:31 PM

Yes I believe gays are a corruption to society. It is in many other religions. But i won't punish anyone for bieng a faggot it's up to them i might suggest some mental treatment.

As for his site I believe he is right about gays. They are as i have reported corruption and filth in society and I will never accept them, but as long as they stay away from me I don't care. They want to bend over lol it's their choice really.

Najis is when the extraction of seimen and other things such as urine and what not. Some people like to class themselves as "kafrs" I came to show how Islam is peaceful but obviously you do not want to see that

Posted by: Shia at October 22, 2006 2:35 PM

Pelayo, I follow Shia Islam and thealogy, It is not part of Islam in my point of view and shiasm's point of view.

Posted by: Shia at October 22, 2006 2:37 PM

Shia,
blah, blah, blah....
everything I needed to know about islam, I learned on 9-11.

Smile!
http://www.strangepolitics.com/content/item/118221.html

Posted by: Carolyn2 at October 22, 2006 2:45 PM

You guys will have to forgive me, but this site is a treasure trove,
http://www.strangepolitics.com/content/item/120113.html
This one cracks me up!
(they saved Sacred Cow Burgers archives)

Posted by: Carolyn2 at October 22, 2006 2:59 PM

"They go on about veils, child brides, female circumcision, honor killings and forced marriages, and they wrongly blame Islam for all this -- their arrogance surpassed only by their ignorance.

These cultural issues and customs have nothing to do with Islam."

If they have nothing to do with Islam, i.e. are unislamic, why does Islam tolerate such customs? Islam hardly tolerates anything that has nothing to do with it. Why does it make an exception here?

Posted by: Embo at October 22, 2006 3:09 PM

...in other words, if islam has such a strong power over everyday life in the muslim countries, why cannot islam bring the liberation of women that the Koran supposedly preaches, and weed out honor killings and forced marriages? After all, the Taleban managed prohibited music (among other things), and no muslim country has painted portraits or statues of human beings as they are prohibited in the Koran.

Posted by: Embo at October 22, 2006 3:13 PM

The veil is liberation?

LMAO!

Liberation is the ability to make one's own decisions, good or bad and to take the consequences. A woman with a sheet over her head is not liberated, she's hiding from the world.

A strong woman doesn't need to hide from the world or from men, she stands tall and looks people in the eye. She shakes hands, engages in discourse. Uses her mind without fear.

I see only submission, fear, subjegation in the veil. If her religious relationship is merely with God and not the wishes of men with feelings of intense inadequacy, she need not hide. God can already see her through that sheet.

If a woman wants to wear it in the home, wear it. If a woman wants to walk down the street in it, wear it. However, if an employer doesn't dig it, or if the government wants an ID, she can either go live in a country with Sharia that would support it, or get with the program.

There is only one reason to force the issue. To change the country in which you are residing. Don't like it? Too bad.

Posted by: Eatyourpeas at October 22, 2006 3:22 PM

"Ali Sina once argued that by covering the whole woman, Islam treats the whole woman as pudenda."

I don't think Ali Sina was just pulling this out of his turban, either:

From a "moderate" Muslim website:

Unfortunately, in some so-called Muslim countries, women are referred to as the "private part," and that is why they have come to see themselves as man’s private property. The word "private part" goes hand in hand with the word (hijab). When scholars are asked what is the "private part" of the woman, the answer is the whole woman is a private part.

http://www.submission.org/women/hijab.html

According to al-Ghazali: "The Prophet said: A woman is like a private part."

(Imam Ghazali’s Ihya’ ‘Ulum-Ud-Din (The Revival of Religious Learnings) [Improved Edition], translated by Al-Haj Maulana Fazal-Ul-Karim [Sh. Muhammad Ahsraf Publishers, Booksellers & Exporters, Lahore-Pakistan, Reprinted 2000], "Secrets of Marriage", Book II, pp. 42-43)

http://www.answering-islam.de/Main///Shamoun/women_in_islam3.htm

I have heard that this idea that a woman is a walking vagina is rooted in the Koran, but I cannot yet find the sura/aya. Yet another example of not having necessary information at our Infidel fingertips at this late stage of the game.

Posted by: remote_control at October 22, 2006 3:22 PM

This picture looks to be touched-up , note how the forehead Black band is solid Black as if done by a black Marker of Paintshop software.
Also note how there are very few sign of shadows which mean a possible overcast but still
the eye sockets are lit as if the band was added
because there should have been darkness just above the inner tear ducts and below the eye brows.
Also note how skin can be seen right at the most forward portion of the scalp , both females show really short hair and the one on the right has those corn-rolls which hip-hop kids use.

Again, look closely at the hanging veil and see the texture from some light bouncing off it, but the headband is void of any texture and the inner eye area is void of shadows.

Something stinks here and I'd like to see more photos of the event , these may be male Islamists
trying to portray the Hijab and Veil as a free will choice by Muslim women.

Posted by: ala-sux at October 22, 2006 3:26 PM

Hullo,

Anyone notice the sign in the upper left?

Looks to me like "Integration IS Oppression".

Hmm. Comments?

Geoff

Posted by: Geoff at October 22, 2006 3:36 PM

"You want to stop jihad? just get out of the Middle East go back to the U.S live there mind your own business and we will deal with things by ourselves".

Posted by Shia

Shia:

I wish it were that simple, but I am convinced that the unprovoked aggression of the Islamic world against Christendom, including Europe, which I mentioned to you in another thread yesterday, as well as the historic Jihad in countries like India, hardly an aggressive world power with a record of oppressing Muslims in their homelands, all suggest that the roots of Jihad, and the solution, are other than what you say they are. (And I might add that to my knowledge, there was no provocation for the Turkish attacks against Europe that were fended off at Lepanto in 1572 and 1683). These invasions were merely another phase in Islam's more or less permanent Jihad against non-Muslims.

I do not accept the thesis that the West caused the current Jihad by generating grievances through its imperialistic interventions in the Middle East. Rather, I see the current situation in precisely the reverse. These interventions, and the grievances they generated (some of which I would normally sympathize with the Muslim world on were it not for the other historical circumstances that I mention here) are the predictable result of the numerous aggressions the Umma committed against Christendom, and its successor the modern West, the victory of the West in that phase of this apparently permanent struggle, and the West's determination to retain that hard won victory. This assessment is, of course, a bit of an oversimplification, even a caricature, because the position of the Western powers during the course of these events was hardly monolithic, but it is certainly true that Westerners have generally found the Middle East vaguely menacing because they do apprehend the fact that historically there has been a threat from that region, even if many of us, due to lack of familiarity with history, have not always been fully and consciously aware of the precise nature of the threat. The current troubles with Islamic violence around the world are merely a resumption of this ancient, intractable struggle and would have occurred regardless of any pretext, or lack of pretext, that Western policy toward the Middle East had provided.

Like Ronin, I welcome your presence in this forum, but I hope that you are here not just to apologize for Islam, or the Shi'ite variant of it, but to seriously investigate our perspective on these matters as well with an open mind and take what you learn to heart for the benefit of all of us in this world, including the well-being of your country and your fellow Muslims. I do not have the benefit of Ronin's admirable service to his country, so apart from what I can learn by reading what sources like him report, I am at a disadvantage when it comes to knowing the conditions on the ground in your region that relate to the current issue of Jihad. But from what I do know about conditions where I live in the West (Canada), I can tell you that not only do I doubt your explanation of the origins of the current Jihadist violence and the notion of the withdrawl of Western forces from Islamic lands as a panacea that will cure all of Islam's ills and its ill will toward the West, but I would place Islam under considerable pressure in this part of the world, including retrictions on what can be taught in Mosques or otherwise promoted by Islamic institutions and on what kind of dress can be worn in public (sorry no hijabs or niqabs), and long-term or permanent incarceration or deportation of Muslims violating such rules or promoting sharia or any other transgression against our laws and the historic constitutional and legal systems they are based on, and severe restrictions on, or even prohibition of, any further Islamic immigration.

I am convinced by everything from the arrogance and aloofness of the Muslim women wearing their tents on the streets and in the shopping malls in my own city, to the absurd and hysterical rage over Pope Benedict's scholarly and obscure remarks, to the historic conditions of non-Muslims in the Middle East and elsewhere in the Islamic world and the current violence in Darfur (things that Muslims never seem to be enraged, or even the least bit troubled by), not to even mention the story that leads this thread, that the current Jihadist terrorism is merely a renewal of the otherwise constant campaign of warfare that had gone dormant for the previous 300 years due to disadvantageous conditions in the Middle East and other Islamic areas. Now that this area has been enriched by its oil revenues, the struggle apparently can, and will, continue. I do acknowledge the difference between Sunni and Shi'ite practice in many of these matters but I am convinced nonetheless that a more or less permanent war exists toward non-Muslims which will not be permanently resolved until the Islamic world successfully places itself, its principle text - the Koran - and its devotion to the figure of Mohammed under critical scrutiny, and chooses to follow the prompting of that criticism to either re-envision Islam or abandon it.

If you can enlighten me further or broaden my perspective with information of which I am currently unaware, I would welcome your response.

Posted by: templar at October 22, 2006 3:37 PM

an alternative muslim view - not just about the veil:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1159193488970

Posted by: aqvik at October 22, 2006 3:43 PM

I thought I smelled some taqiyya re Islam being a religion of peace. We will be addressing that set of myth-claims/half-truths under section 1.0 here. Caroline has addressed the myth that jihad is only defensive in a readable draft here. We also have some extended articles that discuss how terrorism is intrinsic to Islam here and how killing of non-Muslims is rationalized in Islam here. To find out more about what we are up to, go here

Posted by: Archimedes at October 22, 2006 4:04 PM

Templar, Interesting view.

But should we not also ban how some extremist jews or extremist christians view thier way of things? Some of them are just as extreme as extremist muslims. There are groups in the United States whom are just as bad as extremist muslims, KKK's etc.

I have met quiet a few Shia scholars in my time and none of them have ever told me we must wage "jihad" on non-muslims, perhaps enlighten them of our faith or spread our faith, which even christians try to do. Islam is not a war on christians and in your opinion it is ok for a woman to walk naked but not cover herself? Who cares why does that bother you? I don't understand that to be honest. I am not botherd by what people wear.

Again if you dislike Muslim Sharia law which will probably never be implemented in the west, then many western Armies should start to leave the Middle East and stop preaching their form of democracy. Jihad bil qalam (jihad with the pen) I.E with knowledge, wisdom, debates and what not is what I believe in, basically to change peoples views i am not apologising for anyone, I know my actions are not wrong nor have i hurt anyone before. If others have then they will pay the price in the day of judgement. The more your presence is increased in the Middle East, the more you say we will tackle Islam and mention losers like Al qaeda many will feel like the west has come to conquer, and they will rise up more and more. Armies, weapons are one thing, but people who have determination are far more powerful. You are provoking a bunch of people who never noticed your presence before 9/11.

Posted by: Shia at October 22, 2006 4:18 PM

Shia - any kid over five can google Sadam or what ever the heck that you want and pull a mother load of www references, which you appear to have done. That does not impress anyone here.

Here is a wake-up call, hello .. smell the beans.. we are not discussing Sadam, I know Shias hate him and Sunnnies love him. That has nothing to do with Burka wearing Madams who wants to change our society to something that over 90% of the people don't want.

If a man marries a 7 or 9 years old, there is a term for him, right? We will NEVER call him Prophet.
If a man rapes his son's wife, there is a term that we use for him, right? We will NEVER call him prophit
If a man butchers hundreds of innocent women and childeren, we don't call him warrier? We call him coward, like your other Muslim so called warriers. We will NEVER call him prophet.
If a man lies to his wife, there is a term that we use for him, right? We will NEVER call him prophet.
If a man treat women worse than dogs - women suppose to go to hell, according to Kuran, there is a term that we use for him, right? We will NEVER call him prophet.

Going back to the line of debate, what right do Islamic people have to impose their restrictions on us and our system and the way we conduct our daily business? None!

So take your beliefs and customs elsewhere. I do not want them for myself and my children and children's children etc. To heck with Islam, the evil cult.

Posted by: MusHuntCowboy at October 22, 2006 4:25 PM

"everything I needed to know about islam, I learned on 9-11."

Carolyn2 -- Good point! That would make an excellent slogan (if it isn't already).

Posted by: Josephine at October 22, 2006 4:32 PM

western Armies should start to leave the Middle East ;"-

Western armies went to Iraq after 9/11 to get rid of the swamps. We ain't finish yet. We'r there to make sure that Muslims will be sorry that they ever did what they did. If you don't believe me go and take a look in Iraq, Afghanistan and to some extent in Pakistan. Boy, wait a few months when Israelies gonne wipp Iran into shape. They ain't gonne wait for teh US help. They have something very nice planned for the Islamic world. Believe me, you will learn who the true worriers are.

Again, I am telling you this because I think you can become a good person. It will require one easy step into the 21st Centuary. Stop believing all that crap what's written in Kooran. Don't believe till you can prove it to be true.

Do you think any of us here believe in Kooran? God forbid, no!

We think there is somethoing mentally wrong with people, who have very strong views about Kooran to be a factual book. We believe it is full rubbish. We can prove that.

Question is that are you brave enough to take the challange?

Posted by: MusHuntCowboy at October 22, 2006 4:42 PM

Shia, Iraq aside, please define the word "provoking".

America's discussions in the news during the summer of 2001 was all about a missing woman in Washington, DC and an increase in shark attacks off the coast of Florida. We were not in the Middle East, other than our occasional fly-bys in Iraq leftover from GWI.

On September 11, 2001, the twin towers fell and America became intensely interested in the Middle East. In the name of Islam, 19 men murdered almost 3000 innocent human beings, some of them in the heart of our military complex. Would you term that a provocation?

Or was that payback for supporting Israel's right to exist? Because truly, what the Middle East has gotten from America for many years is our money, purchasing oil. Humanitarian aid for the Palestinians (stolen by Arafat and company). And acknowledgement and work to bring peace to that area through diplomacy and offerring compromise, rejected by the Palestinians who were much more interested in the infitada then peace for their brothers.

When Muslims riot in the streets and make death threats over something as stupid as a cartoon, there is something seriously wrong with that picture. A cartoon a provocation? How old are these people again? It's like something from the preschool playground playing out with adults who are supposed to use their brains instead of their fists.

From here it looks like Westerners breathing air is a provocation. And our responses would/will never be acceptable.

Posted by: Eatyourpeas at October 22, 2006 4:44 PM

"You are provoking a bunch of people who never noticed your presence before 9/11."

This is somewhat ironic, as it actually appears to refer more correctly to Westerners then it does to Middle Easterners. Is this taqquiya again?

Shia's position is that we ought to just let the Middle East alone to sort its own problems. I for one would be happy to do so; and yet, the ongoing, ummah-wide humanitarian crisis in the Middle East by muslims against non-muslims, and against each other, and against women, makes me very uneasy. It might be best for islam to either reform itself or disappear entirely; bloodshed in the name of an illusory god doesn't amount to a sensible philosophy.

Geoff

Posted by: Geoff at October 22, 2006 4:45 PM

Another point, Shia - your 'scholars' suppose that islam should be spread and you mention that even Christians prosetylize. Yet, prosetylization of Christianity is forbidden in islamic nations; it is a crime punishable by death to revert from islam to some other more rational faith, or to no faith at all. How do you reconcile this with your stance against religious violence? Do you do so?

Geoff

Posted by: Geoff at October 22, 2006 4:49 PM

Eatyourpeas: excellent points. I might mention a term I invented to refer to your last comment: BWI - Breathing While Infidel.

Geoff

Posted by: Geoff at October 22, 2006 4:52 PM

Hmm... So a minority counts as the majority (ie, they are valued more than the majority). That isn't democracy, that is feudalism.

Posted by: TheVoiceofTruth at October 22, 2006 4:53 PM

"But should we not also ban how some extremist jews or extremist christians view thier way of things? Some of them are just as extreme as extremist muslims. There are groups in the United States whom are just as bad as extremist muslims, KKK's etc."

Having a negative thought process isn't illegal. ACTING on those thought processes may be.

The Nazis were allowed to march in Skokie, PA much to the chagrin and dismay of people all over America. Because we value freedom of speech. Protecting the right of an idiot to speak, someone's view that is offensive, means that your right to speak is also protected. It's icky but it works.

However, that doesn't mean that we turn a blind eye to those folks, quite the contrary. They step over the line and break the law and their asses are in court.

There is a huge difference between speaking and DOING. It's the reason why Islamists were able to protest at the WTC site with signs and a bullhorn, saying offensive things. Were they to physically ACT upon those words, they would have been in jail so fast their heads would spin.

But when it comes to NUMBERS? Honey, the number of Muslim extremists causing physical havoc and mayhem in the world far surpasses anytying that some tiny group in America is espousing or acting upon. So tiny that no one is really concerned by them. A handful of bad incidents versus THOUSANDS murdered in the name of Allah.

Is the KKK international? Nope. (And when was the last time anyone noticed them in the media?) Where are the rampaging evangelicals? They don't exist. However, can anyone even count the number of Islamic suicide bombers worldwide who've either killed themselves or are trained and waiting to kill themselves and others? Like ants at a picnic and more are coming.

And speaking of those folks, do we party when they act? No. We condemn them personally and in the media, and then demand justice for the innocents. What happens with suicide bombers for Islam in the Middle East? They're declared martyrs for Allah and celebrated. I'm sorry, but there is absolutely no Western moral equivalent for paying off the families of bombers, having a community clap those folks on the back and scripture that backs it up. It just doesn't exist. The West thinks that is insane.

Posted by: Eatyourpeas at October 22, 2006 5:00 PM

Geoff:

Breathing while infidel...LOL

Posted by: Eatyourpeas at October 22, 2006 5:03 PM

The veil is simply a sign of control of Muslim men of the Muslim women, period.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at October 22, 2006 5:15 PM

Geoff,

I believe you're correct about that sign, but I can't find other photos of the event.

If that's what it says, well...

Posted by: PRCS at October 22, 2006 5:30 PM

Well, shia, you said stoning had long since stopped under islam. When I proved you wrong with 4 Very Easy examples you couldn't even be bothered to respond to obvious documented truth, only raised the issue of slapping panties over someone's head as being equivalent to people being stoned to death under today's wide-spread use of sharia 'law.'

That's the best you can do? I thought someone credited you with being able to make a decent argument.

No wonder islam hasn't advanced.

Posted by: Gary at October 22, 2006 5:34 PM

'I don't see KKK members walking around in YOUR frickin' countries. When they do then you can get upset too.'~ Americaningermany

Well... I hate to say, but David Duke IS in their frickin' countries.

As an honored talk-show host.

They love the nazi types.

Posted by: Gary at October 22, 2006 5:36 PM

Shia - The Troll,
Like it or not, I will express my opinion directly to you. Exercising your freedom of speech, you intend on flooding this site with constant propaganda statements on how wonderful this “religion of peace” is. I don’t believe a word of what you say. I suggest you get all of that garbage out of your Tiny Brain (TB) so you have room to learn and see what is going on in the real world. Sit back, relax and read about all the suffering inflicted on people and citizens of countries all over the world. Take the time to think about it. If my opinion is harsh, I do not apologize because here is just two examples of what talking about. I saw these at Dhimmi Watch, so you don’t have to go very far to get started. Here is the examples;

Female genital mutilation in Atlanta, Georgia by her father. The girl was only 2.
Her father, Khalid Adem, was born in Ethiopia
Police say Adem circumcised his daughter with scissors in his Duluth apartment, while someone else held the girl's legs.

Tehran, Iran, Oct. 21 -- Girls as young as nine are running away from their homes and living on the streets in Iran.
Iran has one of the highest record of runaway girls and women in the world.
The state-run news agency ILNA reported in July that there were some 300,000 run-away women and girls in Iran and that 86 percent of girls who ran away from their homes for the first time were raped. The majority of such victims are rejected by their families if they choose to return after having been raped.

So, why don’t you direct your efforts to eliminate these criminal acts instead of trying to spread more of it by the lies you spew forth.

Posted by: THSIMJ at October 22, 2006 5:56 PM

bigcatgirl13106

The veil is simply a sign of control of Muslim men of the Muslim women, period.

- and to hide the bruises

Posted by: Dsinc at October 22, 2006 6:06 PM

templar,

"the notion of the withdrawl of Western forces from Islamic lands as a panacea that will cure all of Islam's ills and its ill will toward the West, but I would place Islam under considerable pressure in this part of the world..."

I think you underestimate the realistic necessity of the former, and you minimize the teeth in the latter. To wit:

1) "the notion of the withdrawl of Western forces from Islamic lands as a panacea that will cure all of Islam's ills and its ill will toward the West..."

Hugh Fitzgerald has also advocated something similar here at Jihad Watch. It is not meant to be a panacea; just a realistic way to deal with the likelihood that Islamic fanaticism and zeal will continue to motivate millions of Muslims into the indefinite future. With such a reality to deal with, the best option (out of a choice of imperfection options) would be to reconfigure the world order into a global apartheid between Islam and Infidels.

2) "but I would place Islam under considerable pressure in this part of the world, including retrictions on what can be taught in Mosques or otherwise promoted by Islamic institutions and on what kind of dress can be worn in public (sorry no hijabs or niqabs), and long-term or permanent incarceration or deportation of Muslims violating such rules or promoting sharia or any other transgression against our laws..."

And that's where much stronger actions need to be taken than implied in your statement just quoted. We need to move, eventually but as soon as possible, to simply shutting down all mosques and deporting all Muslims -- immigrants and citizens alike, hostile and friendly alike -- in order to reconfigure the world order into apartheid: this apartheid should be seen as forced upon us by the eschatologically pathological and belligerently intractable division of the world into the Two Dars which underpins the Muslim world view.

Posted by: remote_control at October 22, 2006 6:07 PM

Shia: "There are groups in the United States whom are just as bad as extremist muslims, KKK's etc."

Give me examples of the KKK committing terrorism? I am waiting...........

Secondly, the essay by Ibn Warraq that I posted earlier is not his own opinion....it is based on actual facts. The majority of Muslims can't understand original Arabic. This is a fact.

Posted by: Johnathan at October 22, 2006 6:08 PM

Where has that Shia guy gone?

Shia I have a simple question - It is written in Original Arabic Quran that women have no place in Heavens. Why do the Muslim men believe that they will meet 72 virgins there?

OK, if only virgins can enter your paradise, what happens to them after your Jihadies abused them - I guess that is what they will do, otherwise it wasn't worth loosing one's life for?

So, the heavens is either going get filled with no-longer virgins (remember the ratio 1:72) or they get sent to hell. That is a double whammy for Muslim virgin women. BTW, does your religion teaches you to respect anything that is human?
That would mean your Allah is abusing women, specifically virgins all the time is it not? That is something you guys follow beats me, or anyone else in their right mind.

I know your tribes have issues with Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhist, Sikhs, Gays, Lesbians, Indians, Americans, Russians, Brits, Israelis, Sunnis against Shies, Sunnis against Ah-medians, Armenians, Spanish, ...

Man of your caliber could easily add two and two and should figure that there may be something seriously wrong here with Muslims, therefore look for a quick exit?

Posted by: MusHuntCowboy at October 22, 2006 6:18 PM

She said stoning wasn't allowed under Sharia?

LMAO!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoning_to_Death_in_Islam

Don't bother to read, just skim and scroll...

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/theuae/2006/June/theuae_June301.xml§ion=theuae

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5383832.stm

http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/Display_news.asp?section=World_News&subsection=India&month=October2006&file=World_News2006102171752.xml

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/Ohmyrus30816.htm

http://www.pakistanchristianpost.com/newsviewsdetails.php?newsid=601

Posted by: Eatyourpeas at October 22, 2006 6:20 PM

Shia:

Thanks for your response.

I will accept your position that Shia Islam does not promote the violent form of Jihad with which the West has sometimes had to contend in the past, until such time as events, or incontrovertible written proof, from a reliable, authoritative source, demonstrate otherwise. God willing, neither will ever happen.

Allow me to clarify my position on the matter of the veil. As a teacher, I know of public schools in this country, that prohibit the wearing of any headgear (hats, baseball caps, hoodies or the like of any kind whatsoever) by students at any time in the school building, partly on grounds of recognition. Coverings over the face, or even over the hair - the length, cut, style and color of which is a very valuable and important distinguishing feature by which a person can be identified - are a common form of evading identification, and this inhibits accountability for crime and the investigative process when laws are violated, public security is transgressed or other misbehaviour occurs.

We in the West, for reasons by no means exclusively related to Islam and the challenges its presence here poses, are becoming very much more conscious of security than we used to be and to the effectiveness of surveillance and other measures used to defeat illegal activity. Now, in a cold country such as this, concessions have to be made at times for people to cover up for health and safety reasons when outdoors and so on, but this is different than behaviour that permanently conceals one's identity or obscures an important identifying feature. As well, certain types of dress, and again, not always Islamic dress and not just women's dress either, make it much easier than more typical fashions to conceal weapons. The restrictions that I would impose, would also affect the behaviour of persons of other religions as well, notably certain classes ofChristian monastics and clergy.

Moreover, I agree with Jack Straw's statements that being able to see a person's face is crucial to effective communication and to the building of confidence and healthy, appropriate human relationships in a community. This is especially important in situations such as those attempting to learn in a classroom, especially in the case of a new language and it also relates to the healthy development not only of children - who need to see their mothers' faces (and at times this is critical to a child's sense of security, especially in public), but even to the appropriate psychological adjustment of men.

I do not, as you sugges in your reply, approve of public nudity, female or otherwise (unless all you have in mind is merely the exposure of the bit of flesh that bathing suits allow where appropriate such as at swimming pools and beaches).

(LOL, I think that being constantly on the defensive, as you are here, is getting to you a bit, because I certainly did not indicate any approval of any such immoral behaviour. You are in an unenviable situation here, and I assure you that I admire your courage in being willing to dialogue with us).

Actually, Shia, for what its worth, one thing I do admire about Islam is its insistence on modesty, something that as a Christian I believe in as well. It's just that it seems that very often this ethic is imposed too stringently in Islam - especially on women - and, at times with considerable violence.

Finally, I note the following comments:

"...if you dislike Muslim Sharia law which will probably never be implemented in the west, then many western Armies should start to leave the Middle East and stop preaching their form of democracy"

and

"The more your presence is increased in the Middle East, the more you say we will tackle Islam and mention losers like Al qaeda many will feel like the west has come to conquer, and they will rise up more and more.

I do not support the policies of Western powers uncritically, especially when they appear to depend too much, or exclusively, on military intervention. I did not, for example, support the U.S. intervention in Iraq. But I don't believe that the Islamic world is free of blame for its current woes or that the West should be blamed exclusively for its struggles, and this is why I bring up the incidents from the past that I've mentioned in my posts. It is not to blame you personally, as a Muslim, to blame all Muslims as a group, or to justify everything that the West has done, but only to make the point that the West is guilty of doing no more, and no less, than the Ummah has so often done. It has pursued its own interests. People are often hurt when the interests of nations clash, innocent people at that. This is tragic, and western powers should not simply be excused either. Some of their policies, including the CIA's meddling in Iran in the 1950's have been foolish, immoral and unjust. But many players in the Islamic world have done much in the past to draw attention to the Ummah as an enemy with whom Western nations must take a firm hand.

I know of no reason to deny what you say about your conscience ("I know my actions are not wrong nor have i hurt anyone"). You are right in engaging in your struggle by way of the pen, your Jihad bil qalam. I believe that if Jihad were always waged in this peaceful fashion, few of us would object to it, and likely many more of us would sympathasize with your positions on a great many of your grievances.

However, at the same time, given the imperative that the Koran gives to fight against non-believers by way of physical violence and open warfare, I seriously question whether your position, your non-violent ethic, can prevail in the mainstream of Islam. Please understand that it is my anxiety over this question, and not any Western or anti-Islamic triumphalism, that prompts me, with great sadness, to say that if Iran does not cease to use its current vitriolic language against Israel and does not act more transparently in its nuclear policy, I will be compelled to support the turning loose of Ronin and/or others with his tools and training to bring an end to your country's nuclear program using the methods proper to them.

Posted by: templar at October 22, 2006 6:35 PM

Remote Control:

My reference to "the withdrawl of Western forces from Islamic lands as a panacea that will cure all of Islam's ills and its ill will toward the West..." needs to be considered in the context of the fact that it is made in a conversation with a Muslim who apparently believes that it is so. I do not deny that such a withdrawl should occur, although, as I stated in my reply to Shia, I do think that the destruction of Iran's nuclear capability may have to be undertaken by Western military intervention to help protect Israel, although I am open to persuasion that Israel alone should be responsible for dealing with this threat to its existence.

As far as the type of "apartheid" style repression you call for against Muslims in western nations, I believe that it would be very hard, at present, to sell western public opinion on such a program. It may come to this if Islam demonstrates to Western non-Muslim populations that it is incapable of behaving itself and refraining from being a threat even when its in a straightjacket, but I think western publics will embrace the idea of excluding Muslims altogether only when this happens. If a program of excluding the Islamic presence in the West is necesary, this will have to become apparent in progressive stages, because I don't think Western institutions, including Western secular law, will otherwise accept such a restriction on what it will inevitably otherwise see as the right to religious freedom.

Posted by: templar at October 22, 2006 6:54 PM

I believe that if Jihad were always waged in this peaceful fashion, few of us would object to it, and likely many more of us would sympathasize with your positions on a great many of your grievances." - templer (Simon?)

Lets face it, if Jihad was waged in a peaceful fashion, this site wouldn't exist. Jihad watch is related to terrorism. If Jihad was waged on www, Islam would be consistent and there would be other things about Islam that might have been true, for instance ROP might have been TRUE.

I think Islam is left with nothing if you take away the violent Jihad. As I understand from the Original Arabic Quran, Jihad is a deception, which means when Mulims are fighting their enemy they will attack in each which way. Hence, www Jihad is only one form of attack.

As a typical Muslim, I find Shia very deceptive. He never engages in direct discussion, however.

Posted by: MusHuntCowboy at October 22, 2006 6:55 PM

"Even here in the States I have noticed an increase in Islamic dress, and I am not just talking about the hijab either. I have seen an increase in the full veil as well as dress for Muslim males as well."

The better to identify them when the SHTF!

Posted by: CelticCoyote at October 22, 2006 6:59 PM

"templer (Simon?)"

Nope - sorry.

Posted by: templar at October 22, 2006 7:05 PM

I'd have to add that Sharia law makes it less than nothing to me, you don't even have to get to the jihad part.

Stone someone to death for rape? Beat them to death for adultery? Cut off limbs for any reason? Reject your own children if they were molested? Beat women walking down a street because they inadvertantly flashed some skin?

Oh, and call it good and want to EXPORT it?

No thanks.

There is no peace in Islam. There is merely TALK of peace. All I see from here is violence or threat of violence. I see a medieval culture struggling to call itself righteous, but in practice, is some bizarre throwback from the Dark Ages.

If it were kept behind the borders of countries where folks WANT it, I'd feel the same, but more on the level of pity for the poor schmucks subject to it.

But when you clamour for it in Western countries. When you think that it's your mission to fill the world with it...And THEN you add 'jihad' on top of it, it's intolerable.

Posted by: Eatyourpeas at October 22, 2006 7:09 PM

Let me give a hand to Shia,
In Hanefi (one of the four sects of Sunni) women must cover all except the face and the hands. As far as I know, it's in Shafi that the face (and one of the eyes) must be covered. I really don't know about the Shiite.
I have seen ladies pushing it up to 100% by using gloves and sunglasses. Really dangerous while crossing the street at night time! Should have reflective bands on them!
Seriously, in my country, we have all types; from mini skirts to hijab (almost burkah). Turban is not allowed in schools (nor any other sign of any religion). So far we have been able to get along except for a few incidents now and then, when one side tries to impose on the other, usually welcomed more then happily by the press.
There is a lot of ignorance though. Many women cover their hair but go with shoes showing their feet or sometimes with short sleeves. A sign that they're doing this traditionally, just by imitating their mothers.

Posted by: Oben d'Imishte at October 22, 2006 7:11 PM

templar,

Very very nice post i admire your reply. Muslims ah my fellow muslims were so arrogant of their power that they have lost everything, especially the kings during North Africa mainly Morroco sold all their science for a few gold coins to the British. Ibn Sina, Omar Khayam and many other muslim scientist whom mainly were Iranian were great and they are praised in the West which i respect, to prove we are people of knowledge claims we have won any form of war.

The Koran speaks of past present and the future, usually when referring to war as i have stated before it praises warriors who fought to defend their land.

If you believe you have people who want war and think that dropping bombs is always the solution, then between Muslims they have the same. People who believe the use of force will bring liberation, the use of force will get rid of the occupying forces. There are some in Iran whom believe that there is no room for talking, that if we talk we are betraying the entire cause, that the U.S will just back stab them, these are the type of people I tend to debate a lot with. These are the type of people i believe will deter situations or any form of peace BUT sometimes they do prove useful.

The most difficult form of jihad is on one's own desire and one own self. For example when you want to wake up and go to work, you feel lazy, if you fight it, that is jihad. Roadside bombs, attacking convoys, just pisses people off not my way of changing governments really.

templar, Many muslims are just tired like others and want to live. No one likes to go to the airport, or open a bank account or what not and be asked a billion questions and then stopped and have to send so much ID, this provokes anger and hatred and think they are trying to oppress. Ofcourse i blame this on the work of other muslims for their ignorance, but the U.S government is bieng hard as well.

Oben yes i know, that is why it is banned in many countries I.E IRAN for security reasons, bukrah is just something of arab tradition.

Posted by: Shia at October 22, 2006 7:33 PM

Remote Control:

One other problem that occurs to me with your program of apartheid, is that it could logically be extended or redirected in all sorts of directions with results that you may not have anticipated. For example what of Chrsitians, Jews and others currently living in Islamic lands, as well as Muslims and Christians from Jewish lands (Israel), etc. Should they then be required to leave the Islamic lands they are living in. If so, where will they go, and why there? Then again, where to put the Bahais, or the Zoroastrians (the lattermost case being a particularly hard conundrum since they arenative to Iran). For that matter where will a devout secularist (i.e. agnostic/atheist?), such as yourself, go?

I think its probably best to allow each sovereign power to manage its minorities in its own proper territory, provided it does so in a fair and reasonable way based on morally defensible principles. If Islam needs to be restricted in the West, or even driven out of the West as a permanent and otherwise irresolveable security threat, then so be it. We simply have to build that case and make it stick. But one could not extrapolate from that situation alone to a similar conclusion regarding Christians in Iraq, who, for example, contrary it seems to Islamic populations living in the West, who, so far as I know, pose no threat to the legitimate security or other interests of the Iraqi government or whatever other power emerges there.

I don't think that you intend any of this by advancing your proposal, but I think that others may extend the principle of the policy that way, contrary to your intentions. If I've understood you correctly, you've often noted that the difference between Islam and other religions is that Islam seems unable to come to terms with secularity, in which I assume that you include the principle of basic human rights such as freedom of conscience in matters of religion. You are quite right about that and I believe that that fact alone justifies Islam being treated differently than most other religions. I think what we need is a policy that is built upon recognition of that fact, responds to it appropriately, and leaves it at that.

Posted by: templar at October 22, 2006 7:49 PM

shiaaaaa....

Stoning. In 2006. By way of sharia law.

Why do you refuse to acknowledge the clear evidence of sharia law being used to justify stonings and amputations in a score of islamic nations? Do you think kaffirs will come to believe these things are not happening if you just continue to ignore what people of your own faith are doing?

Posted by: Gary at October 22, 2006 7:58 PM

Gary,

As long as i have had family in Iran, Iraq. I've never heard of anyone bieng stoned maybe it has occurd i don't know and yes it is part of the sharia law although i believe it takes certain measures to provoke such a punishment.

Posted by: Shia at October 22, 2006 8:08 PM

templar, before I respond to your responses, I'd like to suggest that your admirably worded communication to Shia is fundamentally flawed insofar as it assumes that Shia is a rational human being who has not been hopelessly deformed by his culture.

Shia wrote back to you: "Muslims ah my fellow muslims were so arrogant of their power that they have lost everything, especially the kings during North Africa..."

Shia thus laments the Muslims of yore who "lost everything" -- i.e., lost what they stole through horribly savage, barbaric rapine and conquest based on an eschatologically pathological motivation. There is no reasoning with such a barbarian, however much he might dress up his prose in 21st-century Western garb.

Posted by: remote_control at October 22, 2006 8:19 PM

Shia has spent a lot of time and energy on these threads trying to convert long time posters or at least soften their opinions about Islam. She denys reality, twists history and ignores the writings, speaches and sermons of various Clerics. Shia states they are stating thier opinions, that is all. Is it an opinion that muslim terrorists are active in the Phillipines, in Sudan, in Russia, in France, Germany, England, The US, Spain, Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Kashmere, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Australia...The list is not complete. Taking foreign troops out of the M.E. wont do a thing for the victims of muslim murderous abuse, in Sudan or worldwide.
The common denominator in all this is Allah, and a rabid belief in Mohammad, the 'perfect' man, and his book, The Quran. Islamic hegemoney has been exposed.
'Peace' happens when the entire planet is Islamic and under sharia law.
Possibly Shia will deny that the Earth was created by Allah, for his Abdallahs...slaves to Allah, submitters...muslims. Allah will not let his muslims rest untill they have re-captured what Allah has given them...Earth and everything on/in it. Untill then, the jihad continues...

Posted by: duh_swami at October 22, 2006 8:24 PM

Well then, spend more time reading up on what is going on around you, rather than trying to tell us it isn't happening.

Google it, bub. 'stoning sharia 2006'

You'll find 126,000 links to choose from.

104,000 for 2005

101,000 for 2004

98,000 for 2003

Helps to know just what people of Your faith are doing in a score or more of islamic nations- including your own:

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=34939

http://minstrelboy.blogspot.com/2006/10/stoning.html

...not that you can be bothered.

Good night, everyone.

Posted by: Gary at October 22, 2006 8:24 PM

templar,

My proposal for global apartheid would not factor in the non-Muslims living in the Muslim world. Of course, those non-Muslims would be much better off being relocated, but that might not be voluntarily and respectfully implemented by the Muslim governments, particularly if we were to expel Muslims from our lands. The main point for expelling Muslims is simple: our lands will be much safer that way, and far safer and easier than trying to manage their presence. Whether or not our societies are ready and willing to contemplate doing that is another matter, unrelated to its rightness and exigency.

Posted by: remote_control at October 22, 2006 8:26 PM

Shia wrote:

"...yes it is part of the sharia law although i believe it takes certain measures to provoke such a punishment."

You may never approve of stoning. Some people in Dearborn would have us believe that they wouldn't approve either.

But those 'certain measures' are also known to those who do approve.

Posted by: PRCS at October 22, 2006 8:58 PM

I have this and 444 additional reasons not to trust iran or it’s new prophet president ahmadinejad.

**The following report appeared in Iran’s influential daily Kayhan on December 1, 2004:

A memorial plaque commemorating the man who carried out the largest martyrdom-seeking operation against Global Arrogance [the United States and its allies] will be unveiled tomorrow in Behesht-e Zahra Cemetery in Tehran.

The ceremonies, which are intended as a declaration of readiness by the Headquarters for Commemoration of Martyrs of Global Islamic Movement, will take place at 5 pm.

The name of the man who carried out the biggest martyrdom-seeking operation against Global Arrogance has been kept secret and he has remained anonymous since the operation. In 1983, he was able to kill more than 300 occupiers of Lebanon with his courageous operation.

The Headquarters for Commemoration of Martyrs of Global Islamic Movement announced that a special martyrdom-seeking unit called Yahya Ayyash Unit has been formed and volunteers for martyrdom-seeking operations who would like to join the unit will be registered tomorrow.

Notice this happened in 1983, sort of crushes the "You are provoking a bunch of people who never noticed your presence before 9/11".

Posted by: Ronin at October 22, 2006 9:04 PM

"The main point for expelling Muslims is simple: our lands will be much safer that way, and far safer and easier than trying to manage their presence".

You are quite right about that, Remote Control. But I think that in fixing so rigidly the respective domains of Islam as opposed to everything not Islam, and effectively depriving the Islamic world of contact with the superior values of the Western world, it might also result in perpetuating the darkness rife in Islam until the end of time by forcing that part of the world to close in completely upon itself. I think this could have disastrous consequences for everyone else on the planet.

There is no doubt that trying to manage Islamic populations is much harder than simply expelling them, but isolating them in the manner that you suggest allows the conflict between Islam and the rest of the world to merely fester forever, rather than eventually come to a head that forces a permanent resolution. If this is to work, I think we have to be able to be very certain that what develops in this closed off world will:

a). never be capable of threatening the rest of the world;

b). never have any geostrategic resource or other significance that we can't live without appropriating or gaining access to, and;

c). (should a and or b fail) be certain to either wither away on its own, or be susceptible enough to extinction by outside force (along with whatever form of Islam develops there) that we need never regret having artifically extended its lifespan beyond what it otherwise would have been;

d). not be a reproach to the conscience of the non-Muslim world for having perpetuated the physical and moral enslavement to Islam of many people who would otherwise not have been subjected to this grave evil or would have chosen to separate themselves from it had they been in a position to know about an alternative.

As for our friend, Shia, I just can not spend the time it would take to note and carefully analyze everything that he says in his posts in great detail, nor the many responses he elicits, and have to content myself with skimming his words quickly so its quite possible that, as you suggest, I've failed to recognize his true character.

Posted by: templar at October 22, 2006 9:30 PM

Ronin,

The 1983 Beirut barracks bombing was a major incident during the Lebanese Civil War. Two truck bombs struck buildings in Beirut housing U.S. and French members of the Multinational Force in Lebanon, killing hundreds of soldiers, the majority being U.S. Marines. The October 23, 1983, blasts led to the withdrawal of the international peacekeeping force from Lebanon, where they had been stationed since the Israeli invasion in 1982, and it is considered one of the first instances of suicide bombing.

On October 23, 1983, around 6:20 am, a yellow Mercedes-Benz delivery truck drove to Beirut International Airport, where the 1st Battalion 8th Marines, under the U.S. 2nd Marine Division of the United States Marines, had set up its local headquarters.

About 20 seconds later, an identical attack occurred against the barracks of the French Third Company of the Sixth French Parachute Infantry Regiment. Another suicide bomber drove his truck down a ramp into the building's underground parking garage and detonated his bomb, leveling the headquarters.

This was NOT on civilians, it was a military attack. Secondly the U.S and French were funding christian militias in the lebanese civil war. Who told them to interfere? Again their presence in a Civil war conflict promoted this.

Many in the U.S. government do not claim Hezbollah is responsible for the marine barracks attack. For example in 2001 Caspar Weinberger, Secretary of Defense under Reagan at the time of the attacks stated: "But we still do not have the actual knowledge of who did the bombing of the Marine barracks at the Beirut Airport, and we certainly didn't then."

Christian militias acquired arms from Romania and Bulgaria as well from West Germany and Belgium, and drew supporters from the larger and poorer Christian population in the north of the country. They were generally right-wing in their political outlook, some of them formed under early impulses from European Fascism. All the major Christian militias were Maronite-dominated, and other Christian sects played a secondary role.

The most powerful of the Christian militias was that of the Kataeb, or Phalange, under the leadership of Bachir Gemayel. The Phalange went on to help found the Lebanese Forces in 1977 which came under the leadership of Samir Geagea in 1986. A smaller faction was the extremist Guardians of the Cedars. These militias quickly established strongholds in Christian-dominated East Beirut, also the site of many government buildings. In the north, the Marada Brigades served as the private militia of the Franjieh family and Zgharta.

Posted by: Shia at October 22, 2006 9:37 PM

Notice this happened in 1983,sort of crushes the "you are provoking a bunch of people who never noticed your presence before 9/11."

I hear that, Ronin. One of the major critiea for telling a deceit whopper is believability. Looks like this new edition is failing that test miserably. One great positive: some statements on this thread are certainly opening the eyes of a few party-goers over here at the house tonight who were a little "green" coming in!

Hey, in a couple of hundred years, islam can have what's left of the world because the rest of humanity will be too busy colonizing space and other worlds to bother.

Deception,Projection, Victimization,Infiltration

Posted by: We need G.C. Scott at October 22, 2006 9:38 PM

Shia, you missed my point. It is not about who or why just the conflict started a long time ago. Like it or not we distrust the Shia as much as the Sunni, it will take real work change that, building nukes and supporting iraqi shia does not help. Your new prophets visions could be taking you down the wrong path.

Posted by: Ronin at October 22, 2006 10:09 PM

I've looked at the picture. I've read the placards. I've thought about the issue.

Conclusion - arrest these women and charge them with the offences against public order and decency that they are obviously committing, then charge them with attempting to cause and foment riot, then invite Mr. Straw to sue for the obvious libel against him.

Then sentence and subsequent to that remove their entitlement to a British Passport and deport them.

Oh God, oh God, please, please give some authority the courage to do this.

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at October 22, 2006 10:11 PM

Ronin,

If you distrust that is your choice, but eventually you will come and discuss the situation with Iran weather you like it or not i do not think it will become a choice if you want stability. Iran does not need nukes, it's influence as i have mentioned is enough.

Posted by: Shia at October 22, 2006 10:13 PM

Nice pic. I don't know why people are upset about veils and shrouds and whatnot. Who wouldn't want people dressed like that running around?

People in the US wouldn't want Klansman running around in their bedsheets so why should anyone tolerate this attire? Same difference-evildoers too gutless to show themselves. Just like Munich in 1972.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at October 22, 2006 10:16 PM

Shia/

"Secondly the U.S and French were funding christian [sic] militias in the lebanese [sic] civil war. Who told them to interfere? Again their presence in a Civil war conflict promoted this."

We do not need to be told, or given permission, to interfere against moslems. You are the enemy - no matter which sect you belong to. Given the moslem treatment of Christians in the Lebanon over the past four hundred years then all moslems in the Lebanon are a target for we Christians.

Many of us Christians - perhaps the majority - have an implacable and unwavering hatred of all things pertaining to moslems and to islam and to your false prophet and your devil-worshipping ways.

Get used to it. We hate you as much - more so - as you hate us. In our case we have God on our side and we will win. You merely have satan and the devil's spawn that you call mohammed and therefore you will, inevitably, lose.

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at October 22, 2006 10:21 PM

Dominic:

I would advise caution when it comes to statements like those you made in your last post about Christian hatred for Islam and Muslims. Not only do you have no way of proving that but it is contrary to the much more nuanced position of the Church since the 1960s, for that matter since many centuries prior to that, and, perhaps most importantly, such statements could easily be associated with Middle Eastern Christians, who could suffer a great deal as a result.

Posted by: templar at October 22, 2006 10:27 PM

Shia,
I would not be opposed to US talks with all interested parties over Iraq. It is far easier to work together than to fight and less costly. And just for your own knowledge I could not discuss anything with Iran as I am not a politician, a diplomat, or a spokesman for the US. I am what I seem, a concerned citizen exercising my right to voice my opinion. Without sites like Jihadwatch I would be voiceless and we would have never met, now that would be a shame.

One final thought and then I have to prep for tomorrow, earlier we discussed if your president was in fact a Prophet, here is the definition: one gifted with more than ordinary spiritual and moral insight; especially : an inspired poet
one who foretells future events

President Ahmedinjad has claimed to commune with God (actually Allah but why slit hairs) and he fortells the future. He does meet the definition. It has been a long time since I picked up a Koran but doesn’t it forbid a prophet after Mohammed and doesn’t that make him guilty of blasphemy?

Good night.

Posted by: Ronin at October 22, 2006 10:33 PM

Iran doesn't need nukes? Of course it doesn't.

Iran WANTS nukes.

Iran wants Israel gone.

Imanutjob wants to hurry the 12th Imam's return so he's pretty much capable of darn near anything. I think that he's as crazy as Jung in North Korea. And I think that if they're not already trading technology, they will be soon.

Have to deal with them? Yes. And I'm sure that it will end up being decidely unpleasant.

Posted by: Eatyourpeas at October 22, 2006 10:34 PM

I guess that it's time for the christain missionaries to start looking for a new line of work?

I don't particularly think that christains hate Muslims in general however the povarication of Islam wakens them. As you remove their liberty to worship as they please, a primordial feeling will come over them. If you think that the christains in the mid-east were bad, it can be very bad here. As you can read the history of our country, when we are threatened by a people we may put them in detention. We have more than enough room to do that and have done so.

Have a nice day Shia!

Posted by: credit man at October 22, 2006 10:44 PM

templar,

You're still framing my apartheid solution in terms of a panacea -- and because, obviously, it won't deliver such perfection, you find cause to reject it. The point of the apartheid solution is not to solve the problem, because I don't think it can be solved. The culture of Islam is too inveterate and fanatical to dissolve on its own.

"isolating them in the manner that you suggest allows the conflict between Islam and the rest of the world to merely fester forever, rather than eventually come to a head that forces a permanent resolution"

Islam will fester forever, no matter what we do. It will fester because it is essentially an ideologically and culturally closed system. It might fester more if we forced it into apartheid, but I can't imagine that will make that much difference overall. In fact, the disorienting effects of secularism on the closed system of Islam and Muslim brains is probably having a more volatile effect on their fanaticism and schizophrenia than a hunkering down would have.

Not only will Islam continue to fester, it will continue to foment its original grand supremacist design to Islamicize the world. Therefore, Islam being allowed to continue to penetrate its tentacles into the West and the Rest of the world will only make that festering fomentation more dangerous for us.

"If this is to work, I think we have to be able to be very certain that what develops in this closed off world will:

a). never be capable of threatening the rest of the world..."

No solution should reasonably expect to ensure that Islam is "never" capable of threatening the rest of the world. You set up a panacea as the litmus test, then, because of course it couldn't possibly deliver, you knock it down. As I said, the point of the apartheid solution is merely to lessen the danger, not to eliminate it -- if only because the latter is impossible. And I think the apartheid solution would be the best choice among inescapably imperfect choices.

Posted by: remote_control at October 22, 2006 11:10 PM

Shia says, "You are provoking a bunch of people who never noticed your presence before 9/11."

Nice try Shia. You've got it backwards as usual.

Posted by: alexon at October 22, 2006 11:11 PM

"This was NOT on civilians, it was a military attack. Secondly the U.S and French were funding christian militias in the lebanese civil war. Who told them to interfere? Again their presence in a Civil war conflict promoted this."

Thirdly, the Syrians and Iranians were funding muslim militias in the Lebanese civil war. Who told them to interfere? Again, their presence in a Civil war conflict promoted this.

Geoff

Posted by: Geoff at October 22, 2006 11:24 PM

templar,

You wrote to Dominic above:

"I would advise caution when it comes to statements like those you made in your last post about Christian hatred for Islam and Muslims."

Andrew Bostom in a recent symposium published here and on frontpage.com quoted a famous and venerable theologian and monk of the Eastern Orthodox Church, St. Gregory Palamas, who wrote in no uncertain terms, and for all the good reasons most of us here know, that Muslims are "hated by God".

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=24999

"Not only do you have no way of proving that..."

If Christians in Muslim countries don't hate Muslims, they have become dhimmi-wits.

"...but it is contrary to the much more nuanced position of the Church since the 1960s, for that matter since many centuries prior to that, and, perhaps most importantly, such statements could easily be associated with Middle Eastern Christians, who could suffer a great deal as a result."

How much longer must we walk on eggshells for these demonic minions and their passive co-dependent enablers?

Posted by: remote_control at October 22, 2006 11:34 PM

is that MASCARA behind those thin veils???HMMM!!

Posted by: JihadJava at October 22, 2006 11:43 PM

Shia, in one of your posts you say you follow Ayatollah Sistani. But as I recall, Sistani holds that non-Muslims are haram and he puts them on a list of nine or ten other items he considers filthy and untouchable for Muslims, including feces, etc. So do you disagree with Ayatollah Sistani when he lists non-Muslims as being as filthy as feces or the like?

And are you still flirting with Holocaust denial theories?

Anyone: can you locate the Jihad Watch article where Sistani (Shia's guide to "true" Islam) lists the items that are dirty for Muslims, and it turns out the list includes non-Muslims?

Posted by: traeh at October 23, 2006 1:59 AM

Remote Control:

You certainly make a persuasive case for your proposal. I assure you that I have NOT rejected it at this point, not at all. Its just so different from the kind of position I have advocated so far in Jihadwatch that I need time to consider it. However, if you succeed in winning me over to it, it would not be the first time, since I started posting here, that I've changed my position on something in response to what I've read here, so I'd say right about now your odds of convincing me are pretty good, if you can answer one major objection.

The one aspect of it that I do find the most troubling, is the moral issue of resigning ourselves to suffering the people living under Islam to be forever cut off from the knowledge of the outside world that might allow them to choose something better for themselves. Though I'm still struggling with your proposal, I think you and I agree on a great deal, certainly on the view that Western culture, including its secular world view, is superior to anything Islam has ever, or will ever, produce. But a great part of this superiority, a moral as well as an economic, technical, psychological and artistic superiority, is in its desire to extend the benefit of its liberty to the rest of the world, its ability to desire the good for the other, as well as the self. If you can suggest a way to allow those wanting to escape a hermetically sealed Ummah to do so after its been cut off from any other contact with the rest of the world (or do you still envision trade and commerce between the West and Islamic nations or some other means of communication to provide help to those who would desire to accept it?) I'd probably find your proposal much more attractive than the prospect of fighting a major war against it, which is where my current thinking could lead.

One thing I acknowledge unquestionably about your proposal is that it would lower the temperature and the level of risk to the West and this would be a good thing (except that the mass deportation process would likely produce its own resentment, and consequently, violence, including possible reprisals against non-Muslims in Islamic countries). I think its true though, that any undertaking to better the world entails some risk. There was great risk (great cost I should say) involved in defending the freedom of Europe in World War II and in defeating Communism during the Cold War. Now arguably we have a much more dangerous enemy in Islam than we had even in Communism, but its definitely part of the greatness of the character of Western civilization that it looks outward, even when this entails risk. So I think we have to consider this missionary impulse as well in whatever we decide to do.

One other point, though not as grave as what I've said above: I note that if other threats arise, in other parts of the world, pernicious ideologies or movements other than Islam, and we have to respond to them in the same way you propose to respond to Islam we ourselves may end up consigned to a very shrunken and fragmented world, and this may become quite impractical as a standard response to ideological conflict(although I'd readily grant that the protracted, centuries-long struggle between Islam and the rest of the world, makes it very unique and unusual, and the likelihood of something else like it in that respect emerging, quite low). From that perspective as well, it seems better to confront one's enemies rather than evade them. Though the struggle to do it could be very long and bloody, as other conflicts have been, the world that emerges from it would likely be a much better one; though it will be much more difficult, a global war against Islam, perhaps more likely to be fought as a series of smaller wars over a number of generations, like the war against Nazi aggression, can be won, and Islam finally extinguished as a result.

No doubt however, that your method would be much gentler, and therefore has a CONSIDERABLE moral and humanitarian appeal as well. So I assure you that I continue to weigh your proposal.

Regarding my comment to Dominic:

I was unaware of Palamas' statement, though this does not surprize me. Palamas, like Paleologos was at the height of his career in the era of Byzantium's decline toward final conquest and dhimmitude. I suspect you're right about the Christians of the Middle East, but I think Christians of the West have their most powerful weapons in our encounters with Muslims in the plane of reasoned debate and objective assessment of the facts and these are most effectively used when not placed alongside inflammatory rhetoric. We should not be silenced by this consideration but I do think that the position of Christians living under Islam are worthy of consideration when deciding if gratuitious insults are helpful or better left unsaid. They do exist under the terms of the dhimma, and many of them, as the recent Pope rage clearly reveals, are thus quite afraid, and certainly very vulnerable. We can be clear and quite forceful without engaging in insults that, however richly deserved by the Murlims, do little or nothing to advance the cause of Christians. Venting amongst ourselves is one thing, but talking to Muslims may be more complicated. However, we all live in free countries, and are entitled to speak freely, make our own choices and live with the consequences.

And I meant no reproach to Dominic, whose feelings on the matter are entirely understandable, expecially considering his own personal experience with Islamic thuggery. Just wanted to point out one dimension of the situation that might have been overlooked, given the nature of the earlier discussions. Perhaps the best I can do is cite the example of Benedict XVI, who spoke very boldly and forthrightly, but also showed great sensitivity to the repercussions.

By the way, the moderate characterization I provided of the Catholic view of Islam is rooted in the teaching of St. Gregory VII whom you probably know to be an 11th century Pope, and has nothing to do with dhinmmitude or fear of offending Muslims. Its typical of the Church's response to heresy and other forms of error to begin an analysis of such movements by noting their roots in truth, before turning to a consideration of how the error in question then departs from or distorts the truth. For the moment, especially when talking to Muslims like our friend Shia, purporting, at least, to be a Muslim of good will, there seems to be no harm in keeping things positive if it leads to meaningful results, or at least causes no further harm. We are entering a new phase in Christian-Islamic relations, though when, for the first time in the so-called "post-modern" era, the Church is now entering into discussions of some of the "things which divide", and this will be much more difficult than the warm and fuzzy "that which unites" mindset that had been prevalent under JPII. Things will eventually have to change one way or another, and as I read somewhere in an article in one of our Canadian MSM magazins, "its unlikely that the Mullahs will ever learn to talk like the Pope, but the Pope could certainly learn to talk like a Mullah".

Posted by: templar at October 23, 2006 2:00 AM

"Well, I happen to agree with Dominic.
Christians who have any sense at all would never trust a muslim.
Those Christians who want to show Christian love and understanding for muslims are committing suicide. Their own and ours as well".

Posted by Americaningermany

Christians are required to show Christian love to everybody, although we show it differently depending on the circumstances. I have not shown any particular "trust" to Shia, if that's what you're implying. I advocated the West's position vis-a-vis Islam, not surrendering anything that I'm aware of, merely engaging in polite discussion with him, since that is what he seemed to be trying to do with us. Others posting here, and elsewhere Shia appeared did the same.

"Do you really think that Dominic's comment is going to make one ounce of difference in how Christians are treated in muslim countries?"

No. But many caustic comments, coming from many of us in this forum and others, being take notice of by many Muslim readers, might diminish the influence this forum might have with some Muslims whose mind's would otherwise be open, and this might work against efforts in more influential quarters to improve matters in the Muslim world. I merely suggest that we distinguish here between venting amongst ourselves, and a very open personal attack against someone by name who was, according to everything I could see, using this forum properly, sharing his views, but also seemingly remaining open to ours.

Posted by: templar at October 23, 2006 2:53 AM

Shia, you said you follow Sistani. Here is an interesting list from Sistani's website:

84. The following ten things are essentially najis:

1. Urine
2. Faeces
3. Semen
4. Dead body
5. Blood
6. Dog
7. Pig
8. Kafir [non-Muslim]
9. Alcoholic liquors
10.The sweat of an animal who persistently eats najasat.

So, Shia, do you agree with Sistani that non-Muslims (Kafirs) are on a level with feces, blood, urine, pigs, dogs and dead bodies?

Posted by: traeh at October 23, 2006 3:02 AM

Dominic:

Looks like I'm being raked over the coals for the comment I made to you above about Shia. I hope the responses I made to Remote Control and Americaningermany will explain my intention, so that you'll overlook the matter if I spoke inappropriately or set aside any offence it caused. I know you have good reason for your resentment against Islam (we all do you, but you perhaps more than most). I just wanted to take into account the unusual circumstances of Shia's approach to us in this forum. Had he been impolite or otherwise inappropriate, such as Naseem usually is, I'd have lit into him too.

If I made too big a deal out of what you said, rest assured that I do not think the future of Muslim-Christian relations in the Islamic world rests on anything you or I say. I just think that we have an opportunity to deal constructively, one on one, with individual Moslems like Shia and that we should not waste any opportunity that this might represent to make an impression for the better on any Moselm out there who might be sincere in seeking the truth.

Posted by: templar at October 23, 2006 3:09 AM

Dominic:

Come to think of it, when I look back on the response I made to Remote Control, as well as my original comment to you, I realize that I did indeed make too big a deal out of the matter. So I guess it took Americaningermany's comment to bring me back to my senses. Anyway, her point is entirely valid, so again my apologies to you.

I don't imagine anything we say here to be that influential in itself in terms of any concrete events on the ground, only as contributing somewhat among those Muslims who take notice, either to their opportunities for enlightenment or to the hardening of their attitudes. But even at that, they are responsible for their own attitudes, and we all agree that the Umma is responsible for a great deal of misery.

Sigh. Perhaps I'm still hung up on the search for the elusive "moderate Muslim".

Posted by: templar at October 23, 2006 3:57 AM

Americaningermany:

After reading and rereading your comment several times as well as Dominic's and Remote Control's, I realize I was much too hard on Dominic. But I would ask you to consider that when I read the comments of someone like Shia I wonder if we might be speaking to someone who - unlikely I grant you, but greatly to be hoped for - is on his way to becoming a Muslim like ibn Warraq or something similar. Just a thought.

Posted by: templar at October 23, 2006 4:26 AM

americaningermany -

You are wise to error on the side of caution given the current dangers with radical Islam; and the burden of proof to trust a Muslim is on THEM -- not the other way around. And from what I've read from Shia, he is not to be trusted.

Remember the old saying, "Fool me once, shame on you -- fool me twice, shame on me".

And I read your post to me concerning Ronin, and you're right. He is free to call anyone he wants to a "friend", but I question his judgement in doing that. My aim was to get other people to think about his position, not to necessarily change his mind.

Take care.

Posted by: champ at October 23, 2006 1:29 PM

champ is precisely correct: "the burden of proof to trust a Muslim is on THEM".

And the burden we should demand should be stiff. No tap-dancing, no prevarication, no quibbling, no smoothly concealed loopholes. Watch carefully how Shia responds to the najis question posed by traeh above. Our standard to any response by Shia should be uncompromising: we should be satisfied with a minimum of nothing less than a strong and complete repudiation of Ayatollah Sistani as a representative for whatever Shiism Shia follows -- followed by a compelling reason articulated by Shia why a Shiite like Shia does not follow one of the most revered leaders of Shiism, followed by a compelling argument from Shia why we should consider Shia's Shiism to be something relevant to our struggle against the Problem of Islam and not rather an irrelevantly marginal "My Own Private Islam" phenomenon we have seen before from other Muslim unicorns.

Posted by: remote_control at October 23, 2006 3:16 PM

templar

"If you can suggest a way to allow those wanting to escape a hermetically sealed Ummah to do so after its been cut off from any other contact with the rest of the world (or do you still envision trade and commerce between the West and Islamic nations or some other means of communication to provide help to those who would desire to accept it?) I'd probably find your proposal much more attractive than the prospect of fighting a major war against it, which is where my current thinking could lead."

A major war against Islam would also put all those non-Muslims and those few proto-apostate Muslims in serious harm's way. It would be six-and-one-half-dozen-of-the-other which of our proposals would cause more suffering for them. But I think my proposal stands a chance of making the larger non-Muslim world safer. I suppose that, as a prelude to a comprehensive apartheid, we could engage in a few "rescue commando" missions to go in and liberate as many as we can. But this would have to be seen as an imperfect measure, analogous to knowingly saving only 10 out of 100 children from a burning building, with the alternative being some action by which more might possibly be rescued -- or all 100 might die (along with many people outside the building, which in this analogy would correspond to the increased danger in non-Muslim lands should we not pursue an apartheid).

Posted by: remote_control at October 23, 2006 3:25 PM

Stuart Varney, a financial commentator on Fox News (and a British expat) noted on one of their Saturday morning programs that Britain is beginning to 'push back' at Muslims.

I believe he said, "...no more bending over backwards, no more appeasement."

He also stated that a British politician had recently told him "it's either fit in or fly out".

I have no reason to doubt him.

Posted by: PRCS at October 23, 2006 5:45 PM

Remote Control:

It occurs to me that I may have read too much into your initial post on separating the Western and the Islamic worlds. Not sure why. Might have been an unconscious reaction to the term "apartheid", which raised a whole bunch of associations. I initially assumed you meant a complete embargo on these places similar to that against Cuba. No trade, no diplomacy or embassies, no travel. No exchanges or relations whatever. Not that any of this is necesarily a bad thing when dealing with a culture as backward as Islam. But I'm wondering how comprehensive this segregation would be and, apart from making the West safer, what effect you would see this policy as having, if any. Would it cause the Islamic world to regress culturally, technologically, etc and become weaker over time? Also would you see it as making any difference to the effective achievement of its objectives whether other parts of the world did the same or not? e.g. India, China, Russia, etc. Or would it still have its intended effect if only the West took this action?

Posted by: templar at October 23, 2006 6:28 PM

remote_control,

you wrote: "Watch carefully how Shia responds to the najis question posed by traeh above."

earlier in this thread, I asked a similar question, referring to an article by Andrew Bostom which discussed sistani's najis stance, as well as sistani's stance toward homosexuals. Traeh supplied a useful English language link. Scroll up to see the response of Shia to my comment. He does not disagree with sistani, but implies a minimal tolerance as long as he doesn't see gays.

Shia describes homosexuals as "filth and corruption" above. Sistani demands worst possible deaths for homosexuals. The "religion" of peace in action.

As for najis, Shia avoids quite answering the question, by implying that some people insist on describing themselves as kafr incorrectly, which suggests that he doesn't necessarily see all non-muslims as kaffirs. But he is cagey in this response.

Tap dancing and quibbling it is...

Posted by: del at October 23, 2006 7:20 PM

del, thanks. I scrolled up and read Shia's "response" (not much of one). It is unsatisfactory. That, and many other of his or her responses simply do not pass muster. Any Infidel who entertains Shia as a rational Earthling capable of productive dialogue, based on his or her responses above, needs to have his head examined.

Posted by: remote_control at October 23, 2006 7:53 PM

templar,

The ideal version of global apartheid would be the entire non-Muslim world agreeing to cut off all relations (economic, political, cultural) with the Muslim world. If only the West could do this, that would be second best. If only major parts of the West do this (some coalition -- Eastern Europe, Australia, USA, perhaps Italy and Germany), that would be third best. If only the USA does it, it would at least make the USA safer.

It would be a ragged enterprise, no matter which way one slices it, given the realistic politics involved. One consideration would be how to define the "Muslim world". Any country with more than 51% Muslims? I don't know. At any rate, the more we can rid ourselves of that insane belief-system and its insane human carriers, the better.

Posted by: remote_control at October 23, 2006 8:01 PM

remote control said:

I don't think Ali Sina was just pulling this out of his turban, either.

Nice group of references you pulled together there.

Posted by: traeh at October 24, 2006 12:34 AM

Well I'm beginning to like your idea more and more, Remote Control. Of course, we agree that it would be most effective if the rest of the world participated, although the same is true of the more aggressive strategy I've advocated, but I think what you're advocating has the moral advantage of being far less destructive both to us and to the Muslims. This is all the more true, because I think I can see some solutions to my earlier reservations about allowing for Islam's replacement by its betters, to the benefit of the people it currently has in its vicious grasp. Quite simply, if it were isolated from every other culture, it seems to me that Islam would quickly regress to the stone age, and this should make it very easy to extinguish.

Some further suggestions, if I may, to which I'd welcome your feedback.

1. I'd say that as the Umma gradually died out, its territory should be resettled as soon as feasible, without significant violence, by outside colonists, by people already living there but willing to renounce Islam, and by the remnants of the earlier pre-Islamic cultures that it has suppressed, and that outside agencies, including international military forces, should supervise and enforce all of this, ensuring the internment of those not willing to relinquish Islam in camps segregated by sex to ensure the eventual decline of these populations or to prompt their departure to remaining Islamic regions. (Any elite scientists or technicians who could help the Umma develop or redevelop the capabilities foreign military intervention had previously relieved them of should be treated as guests of the international community outside of the Islamic world, so that they do no further harm). To remain free in non-restrictive areas, a person or population would have to surrender everything Islamic, all of which would have to be banned. All of this, or course, amounts to an occupation and reclamation program that could be gradually introduced, beginning with those areas most accessible to foreign forces, but extending eventually to the rest of the region. Given a weakened, stone aged Umma, this could be achieved with only the most minimal use of force, or, in many cases, none at all.

2. To that end the region should be flooded with as much information about the outside world as possible under the primitive conditions pertaining. Missionaries could be enlisted to do this, but they would have to operate without providing material or development aid to any person or community who doesn't first submit to de-Islamicization and re-education measures.

3. I see no reason why the rescue missions you mentioned earlier could not be mounted more often; as often, in fact as conditions allow and circumstances warrant, at whatever stage of the project.

4. I believe that to be most effective, the West should work on improving its relations with countries like Russia, China and India, to ensure that they're on side, and they find no strategic interest the Islamic powers occupying the region. As a matter of fact, I'd say that this should precede the expulsion and repatriation phase because otherwise countries like Russia and China will continue to frustrate Western objectives by snuggling up with nations like Iran, Syria, etc.

5. Some limited use of military force might be necessary to eliminate military-industrial production capability, and certainly to destroy the nuclear ambitions of upstarts like Iran, or anything else that gives them to opportunity to develop any strategic capabilities that make them again a significant threat. As well, we should be prepared to provide support to non-Muslim populations large enough to successfully establish viable states independent of any sovereign Muslim power, including not only the state of Israel, but the Christians of Lebanon.

6. Islamic holy sites, especially sites like the Ka’aba at Mecca, should be destroyed to undermine the enemy’s morale, provided that this is done with conventional weapons, and care taken to avoid civilian casualties. Care should also be taken to ensure that once destroyed, these sites, and whatever significant relics they house, stay destroyed

In answer to your question of what constitutes an Islamic state, I'd say that its any state adhering to any form of Sharia law, any state that has had a historical tradition of adherence to Islam which has influenced its style and traditions of governance, or any state in which a majority of citizens are Muslims. I know that this is all still rather vague, but maybe its at least a helpful start.

Apart from a definition like this, I’d say governments outside the Islamic world could develop a system of treaties obliging signatories to internally isolate any Islamic areas within their borders or otherwise suppress whatever indigenous Islamic presence they have through passage and enforcement of restrictive legislation that, again, prompts either renunciation of Islam, permanent incarceration, or departure to an Islamic nation.

Awaiting your thoughts, if you have time.

Posted by: templar at October 24, 2006 1:12 AM

templar, all your projections seem sound enough; they are all based on the eventuality of the apartheid project. I agree with most of what you say, but much of it is based on ideals, which probably won't happen (like getting Russia and China on board). And, of course, the apartheid project itself probably won't happen, given the dominance of PC (for one thing, the name would have to be changed!).

One thing I'm not so sure about is the idea that isolating the Muslim world will make them collapse because they will have devolved into a Stone Age. I think you underestimate the fervor of Muslims. They will continue to thrive in their fanatical culture no matter what level of civilization or lack thereof they otherwise manifest: if they regress to a Stone Age they will continue to be fanatical and will resist us coming in to "extinguish" their culture. We thus would have to take violent measures to do that at that stage, because they will continue screaming, ululating and flailing their blades to their last breath. So that phase would not be as clinical as you make it out to be.

Posted by: remote_control at October 24, 2006 3:02 AM

ala-sux wrote "these may be male Islamists trying to portray the Hijab and Veil as a free will choice by Muslim women."

You may well be onto something. Look at the one on the left holding the sign that says it's "women's liberation." Look at the hand and the wrist. I could see some agitators slapping a little Maybelline and a veil on their smaller, finer-featured men...

I think the other one is a woman though. Check out her ring, her nails but mostly, her eyeliner. You have to be a real female or RuPaul to do a cat's-eye like that!

Posted by: GoldieLox at October 24, 2006 11:19 AM