One mo' time, with Churchill, for everyone's favorite quote about Muslims:

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men."

"Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytising faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."

There is what Churchill saw, in the very same African neighborhood as Chad, for Churchill, last-cavalry-charge-at-Omdurman Churchill, was reporting from what is now the Sudan.

The "fanatical frenzy" which is "as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog" and that can burst out, whether in the Sudan, or anywhere else.

Think of Pakistan (how many mob scenes do you need to recall -- perhaps the one of the Pakistani mob besieging the American Embassy in November 1979 because one group of Muslims seized the Great Mosque in Mecca from another group, the Al-Saud), or in Bangladesh (remember what has happened to hapless Hindus passing by a mosque as Friday Prayers are getting out). Think of all the cheering, clapping, delighted mobs of Muslims, handing out confetti if they were poor -- in the "West Bank" -- or treating others to multi-course dinners if they were rich, as in Riyadh and Jiddah, and all those in-between, in Cairo and Amman and elsewhere, simply delighted, in their fine frenzy, their ill-concealed hydrophobic blood-lust, when they heard the glad tidings about the attack on the World Trade Center.

And you need go no farther than supposedly "civilized" Lebanon, where the Christian presence is said to have uplifted, in an unrecognized mission civilisatrice, the local Muslims and quasi-Muslims, to see the same blood-lust on display just the other day, when a child-murderer was given a hero's welcome, hailed by one and all, held up for the nation's youth as an example of how to heroically behave.

"Frenzy."

"Hydrophobia."

Posted by: Hugh at July 22, 2008 9:00 AM

That explains it all, Hugh. What they may need for their rabies is 21 shots in the stomach, which is too bad, since the cure is worse than the disease.

Posted by: Jewel Atkins at July 22, 2008 9:06 AM

And they destroyed a medical clinic, THEIR medical clinic. One thing Chad has is too many medical clinics

Posted by: poetcomic1 at July 22, 2008 9:11 AM

"Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live."

That't right! "...wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live."

The higher the Muslim population the greater the violence....Ban Muslim Immigration.

Posted by: exsgtbrown at July 22, 2008 9:34 AM

"Bichara's followers went on a rampage in Kouno, destroying four churches, 158 homes, a medical clinic and a police station"

I recall an earlier thread on this in JW, or maybe ROP, but I don't remember any noticeable coverage in the MSM. By way of contrast, imagine the firestorm of outrage in the media if this had been a fundamentalist Christian attack on an abortion clinic,

Posted by: ebonystone at July 22, 2008 10:17 AM

Far from Chad, other Muslims exhibit the same same "fanatical frenzy" in countries where Muslims rule and they have no reason to fear punishment:

Here's one example:

http://mukto-mona.com/human_rights/ethnic_clensing_Bangladesh.html

This is the accompanying caption:

"A Hindu being beaten by Muslims in a mosque in Bangladesh. He was captured outside the mosque while going home. After Friday prayers were over, the Muslims came out and grabbed the first Hindu they could. Mr. Vimal Patak a Bangladeshi born Hindu was beaten to death with sticks as the Muslim mullas (priests) chanted "kill the Kafir!" (non-muslim). With folded hands he begged for his life and died a brutal death."

Posted by: Hugh at July 22, 2008 10:39 AM

While Muslims enjoy the coveted "minority status" in the west the distincion in their own sphere of controll has a much more deadly connotation. I wonder how they would treat us in any Western European province, or American County if they felt like they could impose their will with impunity. See Darfur, see Armenia, see Kashmir, see Bangladesh, see Pakistan, see Egypt, see Gaza, see E timor, see Kosovo, see Algeria, need I go on? Yeah restive times in Chad eh?

Posted by: ethoman at July 22, 2008 11:40 AM

The West needs another Churchill. Soon.

Posted by: Wellington at July 22, 2008 1:24 PM

The West would never elect another Churchill. 40 years of political correctness and multiculturalist pap has seen to that.

Posted by: Spirit Of 1683 at July 22, 2008 1:57 PM

While Muslims enjoy the coveted "minority status" in the west the distincion in their own sphere of controll has a much more deadly connotation. I wonder how they would treat us in any Western European province, or American County if they felt like they could impose their will with impunity. See Darfur, see Armenia, see Kashmir, see Bangladesh, see Pakistan, see Egypt, see Gaza, see E timor, see Kosovo, see Algeria, need I go on? Yeah restive times in Chad eh?

You're likely to see that in France if you live another 50 years or so.

Posted by: Spirit Of 1683 at July 22, 2008 1:59 PM

Right. Makes you think which of these two methods is more effective when dealing with an implacable foe—swift decisive action or trying to "win hearts and minds.”
...........................

Yes. Although, you have to wonder just how swift and decisive the action was, since they did not act until "four churches, 158 homes, a medical clinic and a police station" had been destroyed.

from above:

The government assault apparently began as Bichara's followers were listening to what was described as an inflammatory sermon. ... Chad's security minister described Bichara's followers as "intoxicated by indescribable extremism ... almost mad" as they "threw themselves" against the fire of security forces in the belief they were immune to bullets.
..........................

More needs to be made of this.

I sat through many Episcopalian (Anglican) sermons as a child, and as an adult have been to Reform Jewish, Catholic, Unitarian, Russian Orthodox, black Southern Baptist, Christian Charismatic Evangelical, Episcopalian, and Buddhist services. Sermons and talks have covered a wide range of subjects and scripture, delivered by speakers both gifted and not so gifted.

Often, I have been uplifted or inspired by a sermon. Generally, my response to even the most miserable sermon has been nothing more negative than boredom or mild annoyance.

Certainly, I have heard a few sermons I rather pointedly disagreed with. But never once have I heard a sermon where the speaker attempted to whip his followers into a fury of mindless violence.

Yet this happens all the time, as Hugh notes, in the "Muslim world". In many places the single most dangerous place for an Infidel to be is outside a mosque on Friday as prayers are letting out. Can you think of a church, or a synagogue, or a temple where the same would be true?

Is this something we age going to start seeing in the West in a few years? Makes you shudder.

Posted by: gravenimage at July 22, 2008 2:05 PM

Spirit of 1683: I hope you're wrong but fear you're right that the West has dumbed down so considerably in the past half century (entirely, I might note, due to modern liberal thought) and would not elect another Churchill. But that still doesn't mean we don't need such a person. And give folks time. Things could turn around after more Islamic monstrosities are perpetrated upon Western Civilization. Multiculturalism and poltical correctness might then very well be assigned to the trash heap of history, principally through ridicule, and the West will then become muscular again.

Posted by: Wellington at July 22, 2008 2:11 PM

gravenimage: Could we see imbecilic Muslim violence in the West soon? Yep. Could happen. But at least in America, and hopefully in Europe, I think loads of non-Muslims will say enough is enough and move to marginalize Islam in the West. It will take ingenuity and determination, and leftist, dhimmi lawyers and judges will make things extra difficult, but it can be achieved. I am confident, cautiously so, but do believe that things will have to get worse before they get better.

Ah, what a burden the religion of hate is to all mankind. How I wish it didn't exist. There's really no upside to it.

Posted by: Wellington at July 22, 2008 2:24 PM

But Chad is Mohammedan - which at least partly explains how they got away with such a reprisal on their jihadis.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at July 22, 2008 2:38 PM

"Chad's security minister described Bichara's followers as "intoxicated by indescribable extremism ... almost mad" as they "threw themselves" against the fire of security forces in the belief they were immune to bullets."

Related stuff from the wonderful world of Islam; there's a traditional reason for most everything Muslims do:

1.
Sheik al-Qardawi [on Al Jazeera television in 2005 as reported by Walid Phares] went as far as linking today's suicide bombing to what he called "inghimass" (to throw oneself against the enemy). According to him, this has been permitted by religious teaching since the early days of Islam.

http://jihadwatch.org/archives/007583.php

2.
With the possible exception of Japan's kamikaze pilots in the closing days of World War II, warfare has rarely known a more frightening phenomenon than the juramentados. Known as sabers by the Maranao and sabils by the Tau Sug, juramentados were fanatics who, believing that they would enter Paradise if killed in battle against infidels, would whip themselves into obsessed states of self-hypnosis and, kris in hand, charge blindly into the ranks of the enemy, be he Spaniard, American, Japanese or Filipino. In this semimystical trance the juramentados often raced directly into heavy volleys of rifle fire, shrugged off incredible wounds, and had to be killed on their feet literally, before their attack ended.

http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/196504/kris.and.crescent.htm

3.
"As for the arguments that have been used to prove that it is permitted for someone to kill himself in order to inflict heavy casualties on the enemy, like the proofs that it is permitted to be courageous and plunge into enemy lines [inghimas]... this [permission] does not allow one to kill one's self, but rather [permits one to enter into situations where] one is killed by the enemy or by someone else..."

"we use the proofs and the texts calling for bravery and penetrating [iqtiham] and storming [inghimas] enemy lines - but this without being foolhardy - and [this is permitted] even if it leads to one's being killed by the enemy, so long as there is in one's storming [enemy lines] an overriding benefit to the jihad, to Islam, and to the Muslims. On the other hand, we have the proofs and the texts that forbid one to kill one's self. The reconciliation [of these two groups of texts] is possible and easy, and there is absolutely no need to have recourse to limiting [the application of] or abrogating [texts]!"

-- Syrian Sheik Al-Tartusi as reported in Memri
http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sr&ID=SR4006

Posted by: DenverRodeo at July 22, 2008 3:24 PM

In one of V S Naipaul's books - either 'Among the Believers' or 'Beyond Belief' - he records a Muslim telling him that the Friday sermon made him feel like he was high on cocaine. (I'll look up the notes I took, later today, and find the exact wording).

Those of us who have watched 'Islam: What the West Needs to Know' need only recall the unforgettable footage at the end, showing a preacher in a mosque in Iraq, waving his sword about, talking about cutting off heads; and the frenzied chanting of 'Allahu Akbar', 'Allahu Akbar', which reminded me precisely of Nazi Nuremberg rallies and the chanting of 'Heil Hitler'.

It's interesting to compare Churchill's masterly and deservedly quotable summary of the effects of Islam upon humans, with the words of the Jewish writer, A Carlebach, in Ma'ariv, October 7, 1955, words also deserving to be much more widely known; indeed, like Churchill's, requiring almost to be committed to memory by all sensible Infidels, especially those in our diplomatic corps and our defence forces.

You can see the great English soldier/ journalist, observer of 'South Asian' and Arabo-African Muslim behaviour in Afghanistan, India and Sudan, and the obscure Jew, observer of Arab Muslim behaviour in and around the land of Israel, reaching precisely identical conclusions.

Carlebach wrote:

"These Arab Islamic countries do not suffer from poverty, or disease, or illiteracy, or exploitation; they only suffer from the worst of all plagues: Islam.

"Wherever Islamic psychology rules, there is the inevitable rule of despotism and criminal aggression.

‘The danger lies in Islamic psychology, which cannot integrate itself into the world of efficiency and progress, that lives in a world of illusion, perturbed by attacks of inferiority complexes and megalomania, lost in dreams of the holy sword.

‘The danger stems from the totalitarian conception of the world, the passion for murder deeply rooted in their blood, from the lack of logic, the easily inflamed brains, the boasting, and above all: the blasphemous disregard for all that is sacred to the civilized world...their reactions -- to anything -- have nothing to do with good sense.

"They are all emotion, unbalanced, instantaneous, senseless. It is always the lunatic that speaks from their throat.

"You can talk 'business' with everyone, and even with the devil. But not with Allah...This is what every grain in this country shouts. There were many great cultures here, and invaders of all kinds. All of them -- even the Crusaders -- left signs of culture and blossoming. But on the path of Islam, even the flies have died."

(He then goes on to identify Islam, Islam, Islam as the source of Arab Muslim hostility toward the Jewish state, but I won't quote that part now; what's relevant here is his ruthless diagnosis of the typical state of mind that Islam induces in human beings, and the outward fruit of that, over time - "on the path of Islam, even the flies have died".

A Carlebach and Sir Winston Churchill would, I think, have understood each other very well.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at July 22, 2008 4:36 PM

Bichara issued a manifesto declaring his jihad on June 3, calling on local Muslims to join a campaign against "Christians and atheists" that would extend as far as Denmark, where cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad were published in 2006 (TchadActuel, July 3).

So while his fellow Muslims burn fellow Muslims in neighboring Darfur, Bichara calls for action against Christians, atheists, and cartoons. Nice.

Posted by: yadayada at July 22, 2008 5:15 PM

since we are citing such persons as W. Churchill, Winston not ward. I ran across this in Melvilles, Moby Dick, the chapter termed Ramadan.

"Now, as I before hinted, I have no objection to any persons religion, be it what it may, so long as tha person does not kill or insult any other person, because the other person dont believe it also. But when a mans religion becomes really frantic;when it is a positive torment to him, and, in fine. makes this earth of ours an uncomfortable inn to lodge in; then I think it high time to take that individual aside and argue the point with him."

Posted by: stickman at July 22, 2008 6:35 PM

Dumbledore's Army, thanks for the Carlebach quote--excellent.

Posted by: gravenimage at July 22, 2008 6:35 PM

Here's the passage from 'Among the Believers' (1981; 2001 paperback edition), chapter 7, "Interchangeable Revolutions". V S Naipaul observes, at the opening of the chapter, that Islam "sanctified rage".

On page 356 Naipaul records the words of a Muslim (in either Malaysia or Indonesia, I think), who told him:

"Islam can become a cocaine. It makes you high. You go to that mosque and you get high, and when you get high, everything that happens becomes allah's will".

I suspect strongly that the phenomenon described by the phrase 'to run amok', 'amok' being a Malay word, may also be laid at the door of Islam. It was Muslim Malays, Malay Muslim Indonesians, who might suddenly and murderously 'run amok', attacking and killing their English or Dutch kafir employers or colonial neighbours.

And while we're thinking about the Muslim who told Naipaul that Islam was like cocaine, let's remember the Assassins, who really *were* 'high' - on hashish (hence their name), when they went out to kill people.

Here is what Montaigne, that great Frenchman, had to say about the Assassins:

"The Assassins, a people dependent on Phoenicia, are considered among Mohammedans as being of supreme devoutness and purity of morals.

"They hold that the most certain way to deserve Paradise is to kill someone of a different religion."

Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592), in "The Complete Essays of Montaigne" translated by Donald M. Frame, Stanford University Press, 1958, Chapter 12 (Apology for Raymond Sebond) p. 384.

(Researched, noted down, and then shared here at jihadwatch, by 'Battle of Tours' at June 11, 2004 9:58 AM).

Reread that last one, and see how perfectly it describes the mind-set that was exposed in what Samir Kuntar's hometown proudly declared, in a welcome home sign:

"Samir Kuntar is the conscience of Lebanon, Palestine and the Arab nation."

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at July 22, 2008 8:41 PM

This is the difference between Church on Sunday and a Mosque on Friday.

Church:
-------
"Love your neighbors as youself"
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
"If a man slap you on one cheek, give him the other to do the same"
"Bless those who despitefully use you"

Mosque:
-------
"Kill the Infidels"
"Show no mercy to Unbelievers"
"Death to Israel"
"Death to America"

Posted by: Nosharia at July 22, 2008 8:53 PM

"the Carlebach quote..."
-- from a posting above

Fitzgerald: Edward Said, hoist by his own petard

The relentless Jihad against Israel -- against, rather, any Infidel sovereign state within the Dar al-Islam -- always included imposition of the Shari'a as part of its intended goal. Imposition of the Shari'a was, in fact, demanded as early as 1920 by a group of Arab notables in the former Ottoman territories that were quite properly assigned to Mandatory Palestine (i.e. all of Western Palestine, while Eastern Palestine went to form part of the Emirate of Transjordan).
Nor was there any doubt that the attempt to keep Jews out of the area was a Jihad directed at Infidels throughout the Mandatory period; curiously, it was some British officers, rather than the Palestinian Jews, who recognized the Islamic grounds for opposition to the Jews and the restoration of a Jewish Commonwealth. It is also true that a few Israelis, early in the history of the state, had the wit to recognize the problem. One of these was Dr. A. Carlebach, whose analysis published in Ma'ariv (Oct. 7, 1955) would have been lost to history, one suspects, but for the fact that it is reprinted, amusingly and quite uncomprehendingly, in Edward Said's preposterous "The Question of Palestine."

Fortunately for us, Said often provided quotes from various European and Zionist sources that are so deadly, so convincing, particularly in the light of all we have learned about Islam over the past few years, that as works of propaganda they no longer serve their purpose. Here is what Said quoted from Carlebach, and what Said obviously thought it was self-evidently absurd, but we read it now with quite a different frame of mind:
These Arab Islamic countries do not suffer from poverty, or disease, or illiteracy, or exploitation; they only suffer from the worst of all plagues: Islam. Wherever Islamic psychology rules, there is the inevitable rule of despotism and criminal aggression. The danger lies in Islamic psychology, which cannot integrate itself into the world of efficiency and progress, that lives in a world of illusion, perturbed by attacks of inferiority complexes and megalomania, lost in dreams of the holy sword. The danger stems from the totalitarian conception of the world, the passion for murder deeply rooted in their blood, from the lack of logic, the easily inflamed brains, the boasting, and above all: the blasphemous disregard for all that is sacred to the civilized world...their reactions -- to anything -- have nothing to do with good sense. They are all emotion, unbalanced, instantaneous, senseless. It is always the lunatic that speaks from their throat. You can talk 'business' with everyone, and even with the devil. But not with Allah...This is what every grain in this country shouts. There were many great cultures here, and invaders of all kinds. All of them -- even the Crusaders -- left signs of culture and blossoming. But on the path of Islam, even the tries have died.

We pile sin upon crime when we distort the picture and reduce the discussion to a conflict of border between Israel and her neighbors. First of all, it is not the truth. The heart of the conflict is not the question of the borders; it is the question of Muslim psychology.....Moreover, to present the problem as a conflict between two similar parts is to provide the Arabs with the weapon of a claim that is not theirs. If the discussion with them is truly a political one, then it can be seen from both sides. Then we appear as those who came to a country that was entirely Arab, and we conquered and implanted ourselves as an alien body among them, and we loaded them with refugees and constitute a military danger for them, etc. etc. ...one can justify this or that side--and such a presentation, sophisticated and political, of the problem is understandable for European minds--at our expense. The Arabs raise claims that make sense to the Western understanding of simple legal dispute But in reality, who knows better than us that such is not the source of their hostile stand? All those political and social concepts are never theirs. Occupation by force of arms, in their own eyes, in the eyes of Islam, is not all associated with injustice. To the contrary, it constitutes a certificate and demonstration of authentic ownership. The sorrow for the refugees, for the expropriated borders, has no room in their thinking Allah expelled, Allah will care. Never has a Muslim politician been moved by such things (unless, indeed, the catastrophe endangered his personal status). If there were no refugees and no conquest, they would oppose us just the same.

Now when Said put this into his little work of propaganda back in 1979, the invented "Palestinian people" and their "legitimate rights" were in full swing. In 1979, the front of dhimmis, those islamochristians such as Hanan Ashrawi, were already in evidence -- on campuses, before church groups, disguising the nature of the Jihad against Israel which cannot be assuaged, cannot be sated, and is not a matter of borders.
But something has changed: other Muslim attacks, in America, in Russia, in Europe, and other Muslim cries against Infidels, and other Muslim behavior, including the demand that European peoples yield to Muslim demands, have caused many, and should cause many more, to read the words written above with a new understanding and a new appreciation.

Hoist by his own petard was Edward Said -- he bothered to quote just a bit too much. Nowadays we do not scorn those he assumed we would scorn, but see the truth of their remarks, and the scorn of the good and intelligent reader is reserved for Said's own text. Quite something.
[Posted by Hugh at May 25, 2006]

Posted by: Hugh at July 22, 2008 9:36 PM

I have just realized something.

There is a typo - 'tries'- in the Carlebach passage as originally cited by Said and then, presumably, keyboarded by Mr Fitzgerald. See this sentence: "But on the path of Islam, even the tries have died."

For some reason I thought it was meant to be 'flies', so I have been rendering it as such - apologies for the error.

For, of course, it must be 'trees', given the frequent references, in the late 18th C and early 19th C eyewitness accounts, to the total desolation and deforestation of the land of Israel, and of much of Lebanon as well. (I am told this was not merely due to goats, but due to the Turkish Muslim Ottoman government, which, in a brilliant example of how to shoot yourself in the foot, seemingly at one time slapped a steep tax on trees...which meant that those landowners or peasants who did not want to pay the tax, promptly cut down their trees...producing the dismally predictable results).

Could someone, somewhere - Shy Guy, Eliyahu? - can track down a copy of Ma'ariv, October 7, 1955, in some library in Israel, and find us Dr A Carlebach's original article? (Hugh - is what we have, via Said's quotation, *all* of what Carlebach wrote, or selected passages?).

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at July 22, 2008 10:33 PM

Re. Chad: I've just looked up the CIA factbook for Chad -

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cd.html

'Chad, part of France's African holdings until 1960, endured three decades of civil warfare as well as invasions by {Muslim} Libya before a semblance of peace was finally restored in 1990.

'The government eventually drafted a democratic constitution, and held flawed presidential elections in 1996 and 2001.

'In 1998, a rebellion broke out in northern Chad {where the Muslims live}, which has sporadically flared up DESPITE SEVERAL PEACE AGREEMENTS {my emphasis added - dda} between the government and the rebels.

'In 2005, new rebel groups emerged in western Sudan and made probing attacks into eastern Chad, despite signing peace agreements in December 2006 and October 2007. {Hmmm - 'despite signing peace agreements' - can we all say 'Treaty of Hudaybiyya'?? - dda: do we see a pattern here}.

'Power remains in the hands of an ethnic minority.

'In June 2005, President Idriss DEBY held a referendum successfully removing constitutional term limits and won another controversial election in 2006.

'Sporadic rebel campaigns continued throughout 2006 and 2007, and the capital experienced a significant rebel threat in early 2008".

And here's the ethno-religious breakdown, same source:

Ethnic groups:
Sara 27.7%, Arab 12.3%, Mayo-Kebbi 11.5%, Kanem-Bornou 9%, Ouaddai 8.7%, Hadjarai 6.7%, Tandjile 6.5%, Gorane 6.3%, Fitri-Batha 4.7%, other 6.4%, unknown 0.3% (1993 census)

Religions:
Muslim 53.1%, Catholic 20.1%, Protestant 14.2%, animist 7.3%, other 0.5%, unknown 1.7%, atheist 3.1% (1993 census).

Note that Muslims do NOT have an overwhelming majority: combine Catholic and Protestant Christians and 'Christian' = 34 %, together with 7 % animists and 3 % atheists.

Scroll down to the bottom of the CIA page on Chad to find out about kidnapping of, and trafficking in, children.

I have just consulted my Christian sourcebook, 'Operation World', which offers a less politically correct summary of recent politics, than the CIA, surprise, surprise:

"Independent from France in 1960. The non-Muslim southerners were politically dominant until 1978, but since 1979 northern Muslim factions have fought among themselves for power, with interventions by Libya, France, and others. There has been a succession of military governments, interspersed with localised rebellions. A Zaghawa-dominated government [the Bideyat-Zaghawa ethnolinguistic group, a Northern tribe, number some 89 000 - much smaller than many other people groups in the country] pays lip service to democracy".

A further, and very telling note, also from Operation World: Chad is 'officially a secular state, with freedom of religion, but the government favours Islam. Muslims have become dominant in government, trade, and the army, though barely a majority in the country."

Finally, also from 'Operation World' - "The population is almost equally divided between the politically dominant Muslim northerners and the increasingly marginalised Christian/ ethnic religion southerners. Their cultures are so different, and THEIR HISTORY IS ONE OF NORTHERNERS ENSLAVING SOUTHERNERS {my emphasis added: dda}."

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at July 22, 2008 10:51 PM

those lands where muslims are in high numbers, the non musim, kaffirs need to be careful on fridays.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at July 23, 2008 7:02 AM

More Islamic peace under the Kingdom of the Pig!

Heil The Pig!
Heil The King of the World!

Posted by: American at July 23, 2008 11:01 AM