Wap, Wap, wap ...

Motoon: "Afraid of me are you! ..."

Wap, Wap, wap ...

Motoon: "I'll damn well beat it out of you! ..."

Wap, Wap, wap ...

Motoon: "I'll give you something to ba afraid of! ..."

Wap, Wap, wap ...

Motoon: "You worthless trash! ..."

Wap, Wap, wap ...

Motoon: "How dare you be afraid of me! ..."

Wap, Wap, wap ...

New York Times: "Oh yes! Oh yes! More. Unghmnn ..."

Posted by: joeblough at March 12, 2008 12:31 AM

"The OIC has existed for 30 years but is still trying to find itself..."

The Purpose of a System is What It Does (POSIWID).

So the purpose of the OIC is to organize Islamic jihad against the West and to work to enslave humanity under the Sharia yoke. It is an organization of pirates, for the sake of piracy. It is an organization of parasites, for the sake of blood-sucking.

Posted by: Stendec at March 12, 2008 12:33 AM

Senegal, hosting its second OIC summit in 17 years, wants the Islamic Ummah to harness its geographical reach and immense resources so it can punch at its full weight in the world arena and assist its poorest members, mostly in Africa.

Maybe Senagal, Niger, Guinea-Bissau and others should threaten to de-Islamize if that ransom, er equitable distribution of wealth is not realized. What could the OIC do in retaliation - invade them?

Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 12, 2008 12:45 AM

Here is an interview with a Saudi "freethinker" under a death threat from OBL - Turki al-Hamad:

http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD186808

He tells it as it is and is extremely pessimistic of any reform in Islam.

As for the OIC, There was no "Islamophobia" until the Muslim Brotherhood decided to conquer the rest of the world. People tend to be "phobic" over any disease that threatens to kill them; and not only that, they get out whatever antiseptics are needed to wipe out the disease.

What has the OIC ever done to trash the MB and its crazed worldview? Would "nothing" be a reasonable guess? Do that, OIC, and you will eliminate a lot of "phobia".

Posted by: Jimmy Bones at March 12, 2008 1:04 AM

"the world's biggest Islamic body is seeking to rebrand itself this week as a forum for settling conflicts peacefully and for redistributing wealth to the world's poorest states."
-- from the article above

"[R]ebrand itself"? Just the way the Lesser Jihad against Israel conducted, in various ways and with various degrees of sacrifice, by Arab and other Muslim states, was "rebranded" after the defeat in the Six-Day War, first by "rebranding" the local Arab shock troops of that Jihad as the "Palestinian people," and then by slowly but relentlessly developing the theme of the "two peoples" with one of those peoples, "the Palestinians," having to have their "national rights recognized" and "a Palestinian state" set up on the very land that Israel had won in that war, with the promise of nothing but more demands to come, made to an Israel that would become ever more vulnerable, its population ever-more imperilled and under constant pressure that, the Arabs hoped, would become in time intolerable, and lead to the final victory, which has remained the unwavering goal, even if some Arabs differ on the matters of tactics and timing, just as those local Arabs, those "Palestinians," are divided between the Slow Jihadists of Fatah and the Fast Jihadists of Hamas -- a division that gets exaggerated attention, when what counts is that they share, and will always share, the same ultimate goal.

The O.I.C. is planning to do what? To "rebrand" itself as a cross between the World Court, and the U.N., a place for "settling disputes peacefully"? Which disputes? The dozens, all over the world, which involve Muslims fighting or making impossible demands on non-Muslims of every kind? Are non-Muslims expected to show up at the O.I.C., expected to expect fair treatment, and to give the O.I.C. any conceivable jurisdiction, when the basis of Islam is the loyalty of Muslims only to each other, with no hint of a Golden Rule observed in the treatment of non-Muslims, with whom Muslims are expected to be in a state of permanent war, though not necessarily of open warfare, until such time as all obstacles, all over the world, to the spread, and dominance, of Islam, are removed.

And the other part of that is perhaps even more comical. So the O.I.C. sees itself as a forum "for redistributing wealth to the world's poorest states." From whom? I presume from the rich West, as it is still seen. But the richest countries, per capita, in the world are those small sheikdoms of the Persian Gulf, and next come Saudi Arabia, and Libya, and a few other Muslim oil states. And since those oil states have been the recipients of the largest transfer of wealth in human history, and since those Muslim oil states have received, since 1973 alone, more than ten trillion dollars, and continue to receive, currently, about a trillion dollars a year, and since the greatest economic weight, and drag, on the world's poorest countries is the price that those countries must pay for oil and gas, and the price rises, especially for oil, have done away with all the economic progress such countries have managed to make over many decades, it is obvious that Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, and Kuwait, and Qatar, and Libya, ought to be the states, with relatively small populations and vast unearned wealth from an accident of geology, are the countries that ought to be transferring, by the hundreds of billions of dollars, some of that entirely unmerited wealth to the poorer countries.

Somehow I doubt that that is anything like what the O.I.C. had in mind, when it decided to seek --if it did indeed decide to seek -- "to rebrand itself this week as a forum for...redistributing wealth to the world's poorest states."

Since, whenever there has been a natural disaster, whether that earthquake in Istanbul years ago (in which Western aid, including aid from Israel, came so promptly and was so important, while the Arabs did nothing), or the tsunami in Indonesia (where Western aid, especially American aid, was so critical, especially in Aceh, that most militantly Muslim of Indonesian islands), or the earthquake in Pakistan a few years ago (where the only aid that meant anything came from the United States and a few other Western countries, and those American army hospitals remained in Pakistan to treat Pakistani Muslims -- a vocation of charity, like all those Catholic schools in Muslim countries, that are taken advantage of by Muslims, but for some reason they are never grateful, never wiling to abandon their inculcated hostility, no matter what benefits they receive from Infidel schools, hospitals, emergency help in time of disasters, or of course, the hundreds of billions of dollars in aid that has, during the same period in which Muslim members of OPEC took in ten trillion dollars, flowed as disguised Jizyah from the Infidels of the West to the Muslims of Dar al-Islam, not to mention the Infidel-to-Muslim transfers that are equally large within the countries of Western Europe.

Yes, we'll see what the O.I.C. has in mind soon enough. It has nothing to do with fabulously rich Muslim states, many with populations of less tha a million, actually sharing any of their wealth.
And don't think for a minute that, even if they decided to share some of it with poorer Muslims, they would ever contemplate large-scale aid to any of the poor non-Muslims in this world -- noit a chance, unless there were a firm promise to accept Islam, or to allow mosque-and-madrasa building, and Muslim campaigns of Da'wa, unhindered and on a large scale.

Posted by: Hugh at March 12, 2008 1:08 AM

When Mr. Ihsanoglu referred to the growing distrust of Muslims by the non-Muslim world a "phobia", that tells you right there that his definition of dioalogue and mutual respect is for the West to admit that there is nothing wrong with Islam, and the way to mutual respect is to stop saying there is.

Posted by: rational at March 12, 2008 1:29 AM

"4. Begin comprehensive international programs in mosques all over the world to teach against the ideas of violent jihad and Islamic supremacism."

Number 4 might include the suggestion that Imams tell their congregations that suicide bombers are not Martyrs, and honoring them as such is blasphame, and that it is highly unlikely that that any of them is in paradise, and any Muslim contemplating following them in their crimes will likely join them in the other place.

No Virgins, No suicide bombers!

Posted by: rational at March 12, 2008 1:43 AM

"Combating Islamophobia is and will continue to be one of the biggest challenges faced by the Muslim World"

And there you see Ibrahim Hooper leading the charge!

Posted by: S Perry at March 12, 2008 2:44 AM

I'm so misinformed about Islam. -sigh- (sarcasm)

I remember a couple years ago a reporter asking (Emerson?) why the Muslim world is suddenly so aggressive now. The answer was "Because they never had the money to do it before.."

Posted by: Bingo at March 12, 2008 4:13 AM

If we post here how we really feel we would have to ban ourselves from our own websites....

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at March 12, 2008 4:29 AM

Cover the suicide bombers with pig skins, and notice how "islamophobia" will end.

Seriously, as always, it's always someone else's fault, and never the Ummah's fault.
As long as Muslims blame others for their own problems, "islamophobia" will exist.

Posted by: Crusader at March 12, 2008 5:37 AM

http://www.planetjh.com/news/A_103163.aspx

Cover I:The man who would change Islam … if he isn’t killed first
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
By Jake Nichols

Jackson Hole, Wyo.-Dr. Tawfik Hamid, 47, was born in Egypt to an agnostic father and liberal French mother. As a student at Cairo University medical school in the late 1970s, Dr. Hamid joined a radical Islamic group and became, in essence, a budding terrorist.

He has since eschewed violent teachings of the Qur’an and other Islamic texts and has embraced a new and more peaceful interpretation of the Muslim faith which he has developed and encouraged by authoring several books and lecturing worldwide. Dr. Hamid believes changing the Muslim religion from within is the only way to ensure world peace.

“It is the only hope to a long term solution to the problem and not just a recipe approach or a symptomatic treatment for the disease,” the doctor told the Planet during a phone interview from Washington, D.C. “I want to treat the disease from its roots so that we guarantee that it does not come again in the future.”

While Dr. Hamid preaches a peaceful interpretation of the Qur’an, his suggestions for dealing with radical Islamists have been accused of pouring gasoline on the fire. He often defends his position by saying the western world and America is too worried about seeming “Islamaphobic.”

“Stop asking what you have done wrong. Stop it!” he said. “They’re slaughtering you like sheep and you still look within. You criticize your history, your institutions, your churches. Why can’t you realize that it has nothing to do with what you have done but with what they want?”

Planet Jackson Hole: You claim you were approached in college by the man who is now considered Bin Laden’s lieutenant, Ayman al-Zawahiri. He got you involved in a rather radical Muslim group called Jamaat Islamiyah. Describe the process.

Dr. Tawfik Hamid: It was a group inside the medical school itself and it was legal back then. We used to have three masques: One relatively peaceful, another a bit more aggressive, and Jamaat Islamiyah. Approximately 3 percent of the students at the school were members of Jamaat Islamiyah. You go to pray with them. They put your name on some sort of list. You sign and are considered a member. It was a group that prepared you, indoctrinated you, with the violent teachings.

PJH: The indoctrination process has been likened to a “brainwashing.” You, yourself, have detailed stages – Stage I: creating hatred toward non-believers; Stage II: eliminating empathy or sympathy toward the pain and suffering of others; Stage III: accepting or using violence against others. How far did they suck you in … and how?

TH: When you are motivated by religious beliefs [they] can be used by some people to suppress your ability to do critical thinking. They did this to me by using certain verses and certain tactics. For example, they liked to use a phrase, ‘If you think, you become an infidel.’ So they use tactics that make it difficult for you to question or think. They say to you, ‘This is the will of Allah. You cannot negotiate with God and you have to just obey blindly whatever he says to you.’

PJH: And the process is subtle?

TH: The process is gradual. One day I prayed with them and they asked us to stand in queues with no separation or gaps in between our shoulders and our feet. This was intentionally done to make us feel as if we were at war. To quote the Qur’anic verse: “God loves those who fight for his cause as if they are one cemented or solid structure with no gaps between them.”

So they put you in the Jihadi mind. You start to feel like you are a soldier, not just someone who is worshipping God. You are a part of a system that is declaring war on non-believers or infidels. In fact, they use the power of hellfire very effectively. The Qur’an describes the hellfire in very poetic and powerful [imagery], with great detail in the torture tactics.

PJH: And I have never heard anyone but you mention this, but there is the use of sexual deprivation on young recruits, adolescent males, at a time in their lives when their bodies are raging with testosterone.

TH: Many students are unable to have any sexual relationships because marriage was very costly and very difficult while they are students. Extramarital relationships are very difficult in this culture and strongly prohibited. So, on one hand you have this sexual frustration, on the other hand you have a description of paradise full of ladies and women waiting for you there. This creates some distortion in our minds and many of the students back then were truly dreaming about going to paradise; dying for Allah as a martyr or shahid, and go to paradise to have these ladies up there.

PJH: How does this apply to women suicide bombers, who are now starting to become more prevalent, where you used to never hear of such a thing? What are they promised, Chippendales and fat-free ice cream?

TH: Look, the dream of going to God and the paradise and to die in martyrdom or shahid is actually in the mind of many women including my wife. She used to dream about dying as a martyr to go to paradise.

But the dream for women is a little different. Women are affected by the fear of hell more than desire in having sexual things in paradise. There are words of the prophet Mohammed which are not Qur’anic but are generally accepted by most Muslims, that says most of the people in hell are women. The women are generally afraid of going to hell because the torture tactics are clearly described in the Qur’an.

PJH: But you got out. You are not hiding in a cave with al-Zawahiri. You are here in the U.S. and a devotee of a kinder Islam.

TH: I reached that level [Stage III] and what happened was certain event. There was a big party in the medical school. It was an innocent party but the Jamaat Islamiyah saw it as un-Islamic, so they gathered in the hundreds, more than a thousand, actually, and they prayed in the middle of the school showing power and chanting, ‘Allahu Akbar,’ and threatening to stop this innocent party by violence. On this day, I was standing beside someone who was the leader of the fourth group of the Jamaat Islamiyah and he was planning with other people to kidnap one of the police officers and bury him alive. To dig a grave beside the mosque and bury the man alive.

And I just thought this was too much for me. It awakened my conscious and I felt there was something fundamentally wrong here and I started to think, which was the opposite of what they told me. And when I started to think, the whole process started backwards and I started to develop a new interpretation for the Qur’an and the Islamic teaching. This was the triggering factor. I found some Qur’anic verses that encouraged me to tell the truth even if it was against my culture.

PJH: You have described al-Zawahiri as a fiercest speaker you have ever heard.

TH: He is a man of great conviction. There is no doubt he believed in what he was saying. He was not doing it to gain money or wealth – he was from a relatively wealthy family. He was a very intelligent person. He had a great future in Egypt if he continued in the Arab world as a doctor.

It’s like Bin Laden, who was a billionaire and left everything to go to live in the mountains of Afghanistan. He left a five-star hotel to live there. So these people are truly convinced in what they are doing. Plus, if they have that charisma, like al-Zawahiri, he can just blow you away and you feel that you are totally captivated by his form of teachings that are very, very inflammatory and very powerful at the same time.

PJH: If we locked the both of you in a room ...
TH: [Chuckles]

PJH: … and waited to see whose interpretation of the Qur’an would prevail, what would happen? Who would convince who?

TH: I will tell you, my views can be very convincing but his views are supported by a lot of other scholars and, also, he would use violence against me. So for me to use convincing here would not be very … well, let’s say, I would try to convince him and he would try to kill me.

PJH: Which leads me to some of the more controversial aspects of your lectures, Doctor. You have said HAMAS must be crushed militarily. Economic pressure must be forced on Saudi Arabia. You encourage western civilization to meet terrorists’ violence with violence. Would that be a fair assessment?

TH: With MORE violence, sometimes.

We have a recent example in history with the Nazis and the Emperor of Japan. We couldn’t change the ideology of the Nazis or the Japanese by peace or love or harmony or mutual understanding. The change in their educational system and their ideology happened only after their military defeat. You give your enemy a powerful military defeat, then you will be able to change their education.

This is what I’m suggesting here with HAMAS. The problem with Israel, for example, is they use what I call ‘a moderate dose of antibiotics,’ which does not kill the infection , it just gives the wrong impression that the antibiotics are not working. What I’m saying is if you are going to use power in the military against the violence of barbarians like this, then you have to use sufficient power to suppress them. As long as you are using this moderate dose of power, the problem will remain a chronic problem. This might be viewed as very aggressive but, unfortunately, this is what history teaches us.
In [the cases of] Hitler and Japan, the world used sufficient power to devastate them and the war was ended and peace happened after that. It was not peace with Hitler and Japan that brought peace. It was military power.

PJH: A little peace upside their head, eh?
TH: But it has to be devastating. It cannot be moderate military power; otherwise the war can continue forever.

PJH: And in the case of Saudi Arabia, it doesn’t help that, as a nation, we’re hooked on their oil.
TH: Of course. It’s a waste of your time if you try to use military might. What is needed is some type of economic pressure to push them toward modality. I’m not an advocate of sudden change of structure of the system there. Some people advocate immediate democracy or the changing of the government’s mind. My belief is this can create chaos like what’s happening in Iraq.

I believe it would be more wise to use their political leaders, some of whom are relatively pro-American, and cooperate with them and give them expertise and assist them in some way or another and work together to defeat radical Islam, which is also a threat to them. It’s like a chess match - one step at a time. Creating democracy now, before defeating radical Islam, can just invite an Islam which can cause more trouble for the world.

PJH: On Glenn Beck’s television show, you got into it a little bit with CAIR’s (Council on American-Islamic Relations) Ahmed Bedier. What happened there?

TH: It’s something we all need to recognize. You cannot call a person a moderate if he believes he should kill apostates or he allows the beating of women and stoning them to death, or allows slavery to come back again, or uses war against non-Muslims to subjugate them to Islam, or calls Jews “pigs and monkeys.” You can’t consider this a moderate person or organization.

What I am trying to do is propose a real treatment to the problem. To provide a new or alternative interpretation to the Islamic text which is feasible because the Arabic language is very flexible; you can interpret at the literal level or even metaphoric level.

PJH: You have a unique, insider’s understanding of the jihadist, the terrorist. You say you knew America would be hit two years before the attack on the World Trade Center in 2001. You saw it coming.

TH: As a simple observer, I saw the growth of Islamism and the violence and I could tell, at the end of this curve, they will start attacking in the West. It was obvious. They declared war against the western civilization and their freedoms, especially the freedom of women, and they hated to their guts any sort of liberal values.

I knew this cancer was growing and it was sure to hit the west but where to hit? You have, in the Arab culture, a proverb that means, “It is better to attack the most powerful, so that the weaker ones become afraid of you.” So they chose America because it’s the most powerful country.

Now, why New York City? Because, based on a Qur’an verse that says, “Whatever they do to tease the infidels or cause them pain, they will be rewarded by Allah for this.” So they chose New York City because they believed it would cause maximum pain to America because it is the capital of money and the symbolism of the twin towers would be most damaging.

PJH: Do salafist or fundamentalist Islam and radical Islam have to mean the same thing?

TH: A fundamentalist is someone who doesn’t want to shake hands with women. He will force his wife and daughter to wear the hijab. They don’t allow TV in their homes. It’s more within. The effect of it is within. Radical Islam is outside. It’s forcing others to believe. It’s using violence against Christians in order to subjugate them to Islam. They are really two faces to the same coin.

PJH: It sounds like a radical is a fundamentalist who takes up jihad.

TH: Yeah.

PJH: Let’s talk about how your views apply to our current political scene and the race for presidency. Barack Obama, for instance, has made no bones about how he would seek face-to-face meetings with leaders in the Arab world that we have struggled with. Will that be effective?

TH: That will never work. In fact, it will actually aggravate the problem.
I’ll give you an example. In the cartoon [depiction] of the prophet Mohammed, for example. When the cartoon was published, it was the 30th of September, 2005. Until four months later, January 2006, there were no violent demonstrations, okay? On the day when the Danish magazine [Jyllands-Posten] apologized – this was the 30th of January, 2006 – within 48 hours, violent demonstrations erupted throughout the world.

That is the phenomenon; that you show weakness and withdrawal with these people and they actually think of attacking you more. They attacked you in Kenya and Tanzania on your embassies in 1998. Your reaction was weak. This weakness encouraged them to attack you again.

So in trying to negotiate with the jihadists or radicals without losing your freedom is [impossible]. [Both] al-Zawahiri and Bin Laden said to you, “Convert to Islam or we will declare war on you.” This is a simple, clear issue that has been stated by the leaders of al-Qaida and has been repeated over and over. So why don’t you believe them? It is crystal clear; they are not ready to negotiate. They just want your submission.
[Obama] might be interested to negotiate but they are not. And you cannot negotiate with yourself. It’s just dreams. And I can see some people in the political field, especially, in my view, some of the liberal left; they live in dreams rather than reality. This approach, these politicians, I believe, will just bring more catastrophes to the world.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at March 12, 2008 6:31 AM

"Combating Islamophobia is and will continue to be one of the biggest challenges faced by the Muslim World"

Take the log out of your own eye first.

Posted by: Lex at March 12, 2008 8:08 AM

Didn't Bush appoint someone to the OIC in the past few months? I don't remember the specifics, but I highly doubt he's there to sperad US interest and probably more likely to support whatever the Islamic states want.

Correct me if I'm mistaken please, but doesn't the OIC make up the vast majority of the "reformed" UN human rights organization? They're certainly spreading their influence, for 1 trillion dollars take in a year, it's not surprising if they've bought just about everything and everyone they want.

Posted by: Sneakyzionistcrusader at March 12, 2008 8:45 AM

"Combating violent Islam is and will continue to be one of the biggest challenges faced by the Muslim World"

Much better!

Posted by: tanstaafl at March 12, 2008 10:18 AM

You know what this world really needs? A conference on combatting Infidelophobia because this phenomenon is far more deadly in one year than Islamophobia has been in 1400 years.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at March 12, 2008 11:02 AM

Still looking for a contact point on the OIC's Website. so that I can offer up Roberts handy 5 point plan for countering "Islamophobia.

http://www.oic-oci.org/oicnew/home.asp

Posted by: Mackie at March 12, 2008 11:02 AM

"Combating Islamophobia is and will continue to be one of the biggest challenges faced by the Muslim World"

Yes it will. We know. Everything the Muslim World does, fuels it.

Posted by: Sounder at March 12, 2008 11:11 AM

Good article, Morgaan.
I've linked it elsewhere.

PJH: A little peace upside their head, eh?
TH: But it has to be devastating. It cannot be moderate military power; otherwise the war can continue forever.
This is exactly what we are doing now.

Posted by: interestinconundrum at March 12, 2008 11:34 AM

"Combating Islamophobia" is like giving a bandaid for a guy whose been shot and then trying to convince him that's not really that bad.

Posted by: Blue at March 12, 2008 11:50 AM

I agree that we need to be combatting Islamophobia ...

I just disagree about who should be doing that. The West certainly shouldn't. But if Muslims would like to keep their religion through the next century, they'd better get busy curing the Islamophobia by curing the terrorism.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at March 12, 2008 11:57 AM

interestinconundrum ...

Yeah, this guy is good. He's like a number of the ex-terrorists — Walid Shoebat and Ibn Warraq come to mind (but not Ed Hussein) — they totally get that it's about a lust for world domination, not about what the West does.

And also, I think his point about the Motoons is very interesting, too: They were only inflamed and trumped up AFTER we morons started apologizing for no damned reason at all!!!!

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at March 12, 2008 12:03 PM

Robert,

Your five points should become the major public talking points for every politician, as well as brought up in every interview with Islamic leaders, every day. They should frame every discussion and be inserted into the language of every agreement with Muslim countries as may be appropriate to the situation.

It will likely take a long time of incessant hammering home of these points, day in and day out, for them to take root in the consciousness of the Muslims. But remember, you're trying to counter 1,400 years Muslim propaganda, reinforced every week by Friday prayers.

The West could use a little rebranding of Islamophobia of its own, and the "Five Points" would be a good foundation for this.

Posted by: Eastview at March 12, 2008 1:54 PM

Eliminating 'Islamophobia' will prove challenging allright. (So is molasses crawling uphill in January while frozen).

Anything that teaches first degree murder (much less unwarranted global subjugation) is simply to be avoided and loathed by anyone with the brains to do so. That "anything" that is teaching first degree murder and unwarranted global subjugation is Islam.

No one with an IQ over 35 is going to "get over it." People have an inborn horror of violence and killing (Islam is largely violence and killing and as such it will remain powerless to eliminate the "Islamophobia" that Muslims keep whining about).

Posted by: pythagoras at March 12, 2008 2:20 PM

memo to Hugh:

Aceh is an Indonesian province and not an Indonesian island (although it is located on the large Indonesian island of Sumatra and possesses offshore islands such as Simeulue or Tuangko). Aceh, however, is without much debate the most orthodox Islamic area within Indonesia. (This is for your information files only).

Posted by: pythagoras at March 12, 2008 2:26 PM

Senegal recently received a severe lesson in jihadi economics with the cancellation of the 2008 "Dakar Rally".

"The cancellation of the rally is not only a great loss for Senegal, but for all the countries crossed by the race," said Mamadou Dia, a spokesman for Senegal's Sports Ministry.

"There is an enormous loss of hundreds of millions of francs CFA," said Moustapha Kane, permanent secretary of the hoteliers association of Senegal.

The 'wealth redistribution' will continue next year when the Dakar is held in Argentina and Chile.

Posted by: Rob at March 12, 2008 3:44 PM

I also think Islamophobia should be eradicated.

It might be that my definition of 'Islamophobia' is not quite mainstream, but I think it's useful:

“‘Islamophobia’ is a fear of Islam so intense that you loose heart and fail to defend your country, culture and freedoms. It needs to be eradicated.”

H/T: CVF.

Facing off against terrorism, religious dogmatism etc., and showing that we can deal with it is the cure.

Posted by: Henrik at March 12, 2008 5:58 PM

OIC: "Combating Islamophobia is and will continue to be one of the biggest challenges faced by the Muslim World"

So, in other words, you really have no pressing problems.

…Islamic body is seeking to rebrand itself this week as a forum for settling conflicts peacefully and for redistributing wealth to the world's poorest states

OIC: Organization of Islamic Communists

One wealth distribution concept you might consider, called "working", involves people doing actual labor, manufacturing actual goods, or providing some real service that other people are willing to pay for. A fine point here: threatening to blow stuff up if infidels don't give you money doesn't count as actual work.

After "working" long enough and "saving" some of the money you "earn", you can then invest in starting a "business". Then you can "hire" other "workers" and the chain of wealth redistribution expands.

In the meantime, feel free to transfer all the wealth you can from Saudi Arabia.

Posted by: RalphInfidel at March 12, 2008 10:01 PM