My Weblog

November 29, 2006

Dhummi Jihate in Aussiestan: “There are no guns, no bad language, no sex, no drugs, no violence that is seen or on the page,” Dale said, but because two characters are Arabic-speaking and the plot involves a mujaheddin extremist group, Scholastic’s decision is based “100 per cent (on) the Muslim issue”.

Filed under: Freedom of expression, Global Jihad, Islam, Terror — limewoody @ 7:47 am

Islamic fears kill off children’s thriller
Murray Waldren and Jodie Minus

25nov06

A LEADING children’s publisher has dumped a novel because of political sensitivity over Islamic issues.

Scholastic Australia pulled the plug on the Army of the Pure after booksellers and librarians said they would not stock the adventure thriller for younger readers because the “baddie” was a Muslim terrorist.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,20817548,00.html

November 22, 2006

If journalists, intellectuals, social critics, authors and concerned citizens throughout the world do not rise up and demand that their governments protect their right to free expression and arrest and punish those who intimidate and trounce that right, one day, years from now, students of history will ask how it came to pass that the Free World willingly enabled its own destruction

Filed under: Freedom of expression — limewoody @ 7:44 am

After the muses fall silent

By Caroline B. Glick

Printer Friendly VersionEmail this article

If journalists, intellectuals, social critics, authors and concerned citizens throughout the world do not rise up and demand that their governments protect their right to free expression and arrest and punish those who intimidate and trounce that right, one day, years from now, students of history will ask how it came to pass that the Free World willingly enabled its own destruction
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | British Prime Minister Tony Blair has gone on an appeasement spree and no one seems to mind. On Friday, Blair gave a marquis interview to Al-Jazeera’s new psychological warfare platform — its English-language channel — to celebrate its launch. It is unclear whether Blair meant to give the impression in that interview that he agreed with Al-Jazeera’s Man-about-Town-in-Britain David Frost’s assertion that the US-British war in Iraq is “pretty much a disaster.” But Blair has made unmistakably clear that what he is suing for now is an ignominious American-British retreat from Iraq.In his recent statements and actions, Blair has been unambiguous in communicating his belief that peace in Iraq begins with Israeli surrender to the Palestinians, Hizbullah and Syria. Blair sees in suicidal Israeli retreats from the Golan Heights, Judea and Samaria the key to unlocking the hearts of the mullahs in Teheran and the Ba’athists in Damascus. As Blair sees it, these enemies of Israel, the US, Britain and the entire Free World will suddenly become reliable friends of the non-Jewish West if Israel is left at their tender mercies. As friends, Iran and Syria will allow the US and Britain to surrender Iraq with their heads held high as they hand global jihadists their greatest victory since the Soviet retreat from Afghanistan.

No less disturbing than Blair’s embrace of surrender as a national strategy is the utter lack of outrage against his decision in the British and international media. No one questioned for instance, his decision to grant Al-Jazeera in English an exclusive interview. It is widely accepted, even by some of the British media, that Al-Jazeera’s Arabic satellite station is used as a recruiting tool for global jihad. It can be reasonably presumed that the English channel will be used to erode the West’s will to defend itself against global jihadist domination. The fact that the network is now operating an English channel should send a chill up the spine of Western and specifically British media outlets which will now have to compete against an enemy propaganda arm masquerading as a news channel.

THERE ARE many reasons that actions like Blair’s strategic retreat from reason and responsibility have gone uncriticized by the media. It is not simply that Western, and particularly European journalists are overwhelmingly anti-American and virulently anti-Israel. One of the central reasons for the silence of Western intellectuals and media in the face of actions like Blair’s is fear of death at the hands of jihadists.

In France today, high school teacher Robert Redeker has been living in hiding for two months. On September 19 Redeker published an op-ed in Le Figaro in which he decried Islamist intimidation of freedom of thought and expression in the West as manifested by the attacks against Pope Benedict XVI and against Christians in general which followed the pontiff’s remarks on jihad earlier that month.

Redeker wrote, “As in the Cold War, where violence and intimidation were the methods used by an ideology hell bent on hegemony, so today Islam tries to put its leaden mantel all over the world. Benedict XVI’s cruel experience is testimony to this. Nowadays, as in those times, the West has to be called the ‘Free World’ in comparison to the Muslim world; likewise, the enemies of the ‘Free World,’ the zealous bureaucrats of the Koran’s vision, who swarm in the very center of the ‘Free World,’ should be called by their true name.”

In reaction to Redeker’s column, Egypt banned Le Figaro and Redeker received numerous death threats. His address and maps to his home were published on al-Qaida-linked Web sites and he was forced to leave his job, and flee for his life. While Redeker e-mailed a colleague that French police have set free the man they know was behind the threats to his life, Redeker recently described his plight to a friend in the following fashion, “There is no safe place for me, I have to beg, two evenings here, two evenings there… I am under the constant protection of the police. I must cancel all scheduled conferences.”

For its part, Le Figaro’s editor appeared on Al-Jazeera to apologize for publishing Redeker’s article.

This weekend British author Douglas Murray discussed the intellectual terror in the Netherlands. Murray, who recently published Neoconservativism: Why We Need It, spoke at a conference in Palm Beach, Florida sponsored by the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He noted that the two strongest voices in Holland warning against Islamic subversion of Dutch culture and society — Pim Fortyn and Theo Van Gogh — were murdered.

The third most prominent voice calling for the Dutch to take measures to defend themselves, former member of parliament Ayan Hirsi Ali, lives in Washington, DC today.

Her former colleague in the Dutch parliament, Geert Wilders, has been living under military protection, without a home, for years. In the current elections, Wilders has been unable to campaign because his whereabouts can never be announced. His supporters were reluctant to run for office on his candidates’ slate for fear of being similarly threatened with murder. Last month, two of his campaign workers were beaten while putting up campaign posters in Amsterdam.

In 2000, Bart Jan Spruyt, a leading conservative intellectual in Holland established a neoconservative think tank called the Edmund Burke Institute. One of the goals of his institute is to convince the Dutch to defend themselves against the growing Islamist threat. In the period that followed, Spruyt was approached by security services and told that he should hire a bodyguard for personal protection. Although he couldn’t afford the cost of a bodyguard, the police eventually provided him with protection after showing up at his office hours after Van Gogh was butchered by a jihadist in the streets of Amsterdam in November 2004.

ANOTHER LEADING conservative voice, law professor and social critic Paul Cliteur distinguished himself for his repeated calls for freedom of thought and for the protection of the Dutch secular state. In the weeks after Van Gogh’s murder, Cliteur was the target of unremitting criticism from his leftist colleagues in the press. According to a report by the International Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, his colleagues blamed him and his ideological allies for the radicalization of the Muslims of Holland.

Clituer reacted to their abuse by announcing on television that he would no longer speak out or write about the Islamic takeover of Holland.

As the Helsinki report notes, although the European Human Rights Convention stipulates that states must enable free speech, “Annemarie Thomassen, a former Dutch judge at the [European Human Rights Court] in Strasbourg, stated that the limits to freedom of speech in the European context lie where the expressed opinions and statements affect the human dignity of another person. This means that, according to her, in Europe one cannot simply write and say anything one wants without showing some respect to other persons.”

IN BRITAIN itself, the fact that no media organ dared to publish the Danish cartoons of Muhammad last year is a clear indication of the level of fear in the hearts of those who decide what Britons will know about their world.

Melanie Phillips, the author of Londonistan, noted at the Freedom Center conference that what Britons hear is best described as “a dialogue of the demented.” In this dialogue, European Islamists protest victimization at the hands of the native Europeans while threatening to kill them, and native Europeans apologize for upsetting the Muslim radicals and loudly criticize the US and Israel for not going gently into that good night.

In the meantime, jihadist ideologues and political leaders are flourishing in Europe today. In Britain, aside from happily helping Al-Jazeera’s ratings, the government has hired Muslim Brotherhood members as counterterrorism advisers.

In the wake of the Muslim cartoon pogroms, the BBC invited Dyab Abou Jahjah, who heads the Arab European League, to opine on the cartoons on its News Night program. Jahjah, who is affiliated with Hizbullah, led anti-Semitic riots in Antwerp in 2002 in which his followers smashed the windows of Jewish businesses, chanted slogans praising Osama bin Laden, and called out, “Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the gas!” Most recently, Jahjah published cartoons depicting Anne Frank in bed with Adolph Hitler.

The first action that Yasser Arafat took in 1994 after establishing the Palestinian Authority was to attack Palestinian journalists, editors and newspaper offices. Journalists and editors were arrested and tortured and all were forced to accept PA control over their news coverage. The man charged with overseeing censorship was then information minister Yasser Abed Rabbo who in a later psychological warfare coup, signed the so-called Geneva Accord with Yossi Beilin in 2003.

This is the nature of our times. We are at war and those who warn of its dangers are being systematically silenced by our enemies who demand that nothing get in the way of our complacency with our own destruction.

If journalists, intellectuals, social critics, authors and concerned citizens throughout the world do not rise up and demand that their governments protect their right to free expression and arrest and punish those who intimidate and trounce that right, one day, years from now, when students of history ask how it came to pass that the Free World willingly enabled its own destruction, they will have to look no further than the contrasting fortunes of Al-Jazeera and Dyab Abou Jahjah on the one hand and Le Figaro and Robert Redeker on the other.

November 4, 2006

The Stages of Jihate – Where are your Society Right now…

By Abul Kasem   To listen to this article 
podcast click on speaker
Also visit this blog 

 

Islamists living in the infidel West are greatly alarmed and deeply perplexed after the September terrorist attack in
America.  After 9-11, many of them are doing overtime to search the ‘goodies’ from the Qur’an and are desperate to prove that Islam is a religion of unbound mercy to their host countries.  They repeatedly quote a handful of these ‘goldies‘ from the ‘Meccan Verses’ of the Qur’an, which are milder in tone than the ones descended on
Medina.  They carefully hide the unconscionable, intolerable, barbaric verses that litter the almost entire Qur’an by saying that ‘those verses are out of context’ and are not applicable to the infidels who have given them a chance for a better life and have accepted them as their own countrymen.  Nothing can be worse than this hide and seek game of the Islamists living in the West.  It is in the interest of all the non-Muslims (as well as the innocent Muslims who have very little knowledge about ‘real Islam’) that the truth must be told.

 

The message is very clear.  Those Islamists living in the West quote those ‘goodies’ from the Qur’an are actually showing the dead Meccan Islam‘ to the vast majority of the ignorant non-Muslims (as well as half-informed Muslims) to camouflage the most up to date version of Islam; i.e. the living and breathing
Medina Islam‘.  The strategies of these Islamists are also very clear:

 

·        When in the West or in the land of the infidels or when weak, then practice ‘Meccan Islam’.

·        When in Islamic paradises or when the number of Muslims becomes sizable in an infidels land, then practice ‘
Medina Islam’ or the ‘real Islam’.

 

The sooner the humanity discovers this double face of Islam (a la Roman god Janus) the quicker will it be saved from the further catastrophe of the like of 9-11.

 

So, how do we know about the ‘living and breathing Medina Islam‘?  Here is the answer.

 

In order to understand the ‘real Islam’ we must look at Qur’an in chronological order and not the way it is published. The chronological order shows which verses are canceled and which verses are replaced.  It is meaningless to study and to explain Qur’an without the knowledge of its currency. Many verses in the Qur’an have been replaced by other verses.

 

The Qur’an itself talks about this in the following verses:

 

God does not abrogate any verse but substitutes something similar or better…2:106

God removes (abrogates?) what He wills…13:39

God substitutes one revelation with another; God has the mother of the Book…16:101

 

These verses have created a lot of confusions among many.  However, one thing is certain.  It is this.  God does change His mind and that that change can be very dramatic. In many cases, the matter of abrogation may involve life and death situation.  So, it is extremely important (especially for the ignorant non-Muslims) to know which verses are applicable to them and which verses are not.  The most important among these verses are the ones containing the provisions of fighting the infidels.  There was a time when fighting was prohibited and there was (rather is) a time when fighting became compulsory.

 

Those verses revealed in
Mecca are considered to be the benign and non-violent type.  There are 87 Meccan verse and 27
Medina verses (this may vary slightly but we shall work with these numbers). Thus, there are total 114 suras (or chapters) in Qur’an.

 

Medina verses contain the provisions of fighting because it was in
Medina that Mohammad received the green light (read signal) from God to fight the infidels.  So, as a guide we can conclude that the verses with a chronology order of 87 or more are the replacement for the Meccan verses regarding the treatment of the unbelievers.

 

 In this short discourse, I shall try to elucidate how we can eliminate the confusion regarding the ‘goodies’ from the Islamists and the ‘bashings’ from the secularists/freethinkers/infidels.

 

Please note that the chronology order of the verses are indicated in bold (   ).

 

We can divide the propagation of Islam by Mohammad in four distinct phases. These phases are:

 

1.      Peaceful persuasion

2.      Fighting for defense

3.      Limited attack

4.      Open aggression

 

 

Phase 1: Peaceful persuasion stage.

Highlights

·        A policy of peaceful co-existence with the pagans of
Mecca.

·        Give and take strategy with the pagans and the hypocrites.

·        Jews and Christians (people of the Book) were considered as friends.

·        Mohammad was almost like the Buddha preaching love, forgiveness, non-violence, and peace.

·        Only the pagans of
Mecca were considered as enemies (i.e. enemy list contains only one group).

 

 

Important verses

 

(Note: To save time and space I have given the main messages of the verses omitting the complete verses. Click HERE if you want to read the complete verses)

 

1.      Be patient and bear with those who deny the truth; God will deal with them…73:10, 11 (3)

2.      ‘To you is your religion, to me is mine’…109:1- 6 (8)

3.      Be patient with the evil doers…38:15-17 (38)

4.      Show patience to the pagans…20:130 (42)

5.      Don’t be in a haste to fight…19:83, 84 (44)

6.      Be patient with the unbelievers (pagans); God’s way will prevail…20:134, 135 (45)

7.      Mohammad is not sent to dispose of people’s affairs…17:54 (50)

8.      God guides those whom He pleases; rewards will be in paradise…10:25, 26 (51)

9.      God will call into account the pagans who slander the Qur’an…15:91-93 (54)

10.  It is not God’s job to see if people believe the truth or not…6:104 (55)

11.  Turn away from those rejecting faith and proclaim peace on them…43:88, 89 (69)

12.  Invite the unbelievers (pagans) with beautiful preaching and gracious arguments; be patient and do not retaliate…16:125, 126 (70)

13.  Leave the unbelievers (pagans) alone…23:54 (74)

14.  Repeal evil with good deeds…23:96 (74)

15.  Leave the unbelievers alone and wait in patience for God to punish them…52:45, 47, 48 (76)

16.  Mohammad is only a warner and not an enforcer…67:26 (77)

 

 

Phase 2: Fighting for defense stage

Highlights

·        Mohammed along with his handful followers migrated to
Medina (622 AD). Some tribes of
Medina accepted him as their leader.

·        Mohammed and his gang started raids on passing caravans of the Meccans to acquire the wherewithal for survival.

·        Mohammad won the battle of Badr (same year of migration i.e.622 AD) which bolstered his morale for further raids on Meccan caravans.

·        After several years of stay in
Medina, God gave Mohammad permission to launch defensive war.

·        Enemies were the pagans of
Mecca and the hypocrites (note: the enemy list includes two groups now).

 

Important verses

1.      Permission to fight for self defense is granted…22:39-41 (105)

2.      Rewards for Jihad is announced…22:58 (105)

 

 

Phase 3: More defensively aggressive stage

 

Highlights

·        Mohammad expected the Jews of Medina to accept him as their new Moses.

·        The Jews rejected Mohammad as their new apostle.

·        Mohammad included the Jews as his enemy and started to raid their sanctuaries.

·        Enemies of Mohammad now were pagans, hypocrites, and the Jews (note: the enemy list now contains three).

·        Mohammad was a little bit forgiving to the defeated Jews. He gave them a chance to live in their lands provided they paid him fifty percent of their agricultural produce of land.

·        This way Mohammad acquired the means of a guaranteed livelihood for his horde of soldiers.

·        The battle of Uhud (623 AD) was fought. Muslims suffered a severe beating in the battle.

·        The battle of trench (625 AD) took place with huge loss of lives. Mohammad managed to win this battle.

·        Treaty of Hudaibiya (626 AD) was signed with the pagans of
Mecca ensuring ten years of peace. Mohammad was allowed to visit Kaba along with his followers during the pilgrimage season.

·        Battle of Khaibar (627 AD) took place.  The Jews lost the battle and surrendered unconditionally. Mohmmad ordered the beheading of around 700 adult male surrendered Jews and took 17 years old Jewess Safiya as a war booty and made her his wife.

 

Important verses

1.      Forgive and overlook the unbelieving Jews; God will take care of them…2:109 (87)

2.      Fight defensively the Meccan pagans but if they cease hostility then stop fighting except for the oppressors…2:190-194 (87)

3.      Fighting against the Meccan pagans is prescribed after the passing of the month of pilgrimage (Zulhaj)…2:216, 217 (87)

4.      ‘No compulsion in religion’; do not force the defeated enemy to embrace Islam; but they will be thrown in hell…2:256, 257 (87)

5.      Spoils of war belongs to God and Mohammad…8:1 (88)

6.      Strike terror in the hearts of the unbelievers; cut the necks and finger tips of those who oppose God and Mohammad…8:12, 13 (88)

7.      When you meet, the unbelievers in hostility attack them and never turn back from them.  If you retreat except for a strategic reason then God will punish you and will send you to hell…8:15-16 (88)

8.      Keep on fighting until the persecution stops and Islam is established; one-fifth of booty belongs to God and Mohammad…8:39-41 (88)

9.      Obey Mohammad, be united and persevere in fighting…8:45, 46 (88)

10.  If you defeat the enemy then teach them with treachery and terror; if they ask for peace then give them peace…8:57-61 (88)

11.  Rouse the believers to fight with perseverance, God will help by increasing your strength…8:65 (88)

12.  Continue killing and do not take prisoners until the land is subdued then enjoy the war booty…8:67-69 (88)

13.  Martyr’s sins are blotted out and they go to paradise…3:157, 169-171, 195 (89)

14.  Can take women captives as concubines in addition to wives…33:50 (90)

15.  There is a great reward for fighting against the friends of Satan…4:74-78 (92)

16.  Fight and rouse other believers to fight; God will restrain the fury of the unbelievers…4:84 (92)

17.  Kill the hypocrites if they turn renegades…4:89 (92)

18.  Higher grade for fighting for God…4:95, 96 (92)

19.  Guaranteed reward for fighting in the cause of God…4:100 (92)

20.  Whether a fighter kills or is killed, he is admitted in paradise to reside there permanently…22:58, 59 (103)

21.  Struggle for God’s cause…22:78 (103)

22.  Can’t lag behind in fighting for God…48:15-16 (111)

23.  Muslims are compassionate with each other but are strong to fight against the unbelievers…48:29 (111)

 

 

Phase 4: Offensive war or open declaration of attack to spread Islam

 

This phase is the stage of open offensive war against all the unbelievers. This phase started in 630 AD after Mohammad re-entered
Mecca and captured Kaba from the pagans. This is the phase, which is currently valid for all Muslims.

 

Highlights

·        Permission was granted by God to declare offensive war against all non-Muslims.

·        Kill the pagans and humble the Jews and the Christians through Jizya tax.

·        Tabuk expedition (late 630 AD) is the first war against the Christians.

·        The world is divided into two houses, viz. House of Islam (Darul Islam) and the House of war (Darul Harb).

·        All Muslims must fight to convert the Darul Harb into Darul Islam.

·        This is the final teaching of Qur’an and so it is valid today and for future (that is, for eternity).

·        Christians are included in the list of enemies (that is, the list now grows to four).

·        Verse 9:5 (also called the verse of the sword) replaces all verses showing mercy, love, tolerance and forgiveness to all non-Muslims.

 

Important verses

1.      Any religion other than Islam is not acceptable…3:85 (89)

2.      Kill (execute by beheading)/crucify/torture who opposes Mohammad…5:33 (112)

3.      Do not make friendship with the Jews and the Christians…5:51 (112)

4.      After giving four months notice break all treaties with the pagans that they did not keep; those treaties with the pagans that they kept are to be honored to their full term; in future make no more peace treaties with the pagans and kill all pagans who do not accept Islam…9:1-6 (113)

5.      Pagans who accept Islam are brothers of Muslims; those who break the agreement fight them…9:11, 12, 14, 15 (113)

6.      Do not make friend or seek protection from the unbelievers (includes pagans, hypocrites, Jews and the Christians)…9:16 (113)

7.      Unbelievers should not visit mosques or maintain the mosques of God; they will go to hell…9:17 (113)

8.      Those who do Jihad are the highest in rank; they will dwell in paradise…9:19-22 (113)

9.      The unbelievers are unclean, forbid them to enter Kaba9:28 (113)

10.  Fight against the Jews and the Christians until they are subdued and pay the Jizya tax with submission; God’s curse is on them…9:29-31 (113)

11.  If you do not fight in the cause of God with whatever you have got then God will punish you with a serious punishment…9:38, 39, 41 (113)

12.  If you fight for God then expect either martyrdom or paradise. The unbelievers can expect only punishment from God…9:52 (113)

13.  Those who are able to fight for God but do not do so are rejected by God…9:90-96 (113)

14.  Whether you slay or slain in Jihad, God has promised paradise for giving all in the cause of God…9:111 (113)

15.  Fight the unbelievers surrounding you…9:122 (113)

 

So, what do we learn from the above list of Quranic verses?  Are you confused?  Of course you are.  When the Islamists in the west are drumming, “Islam is peace. Islam is tolerance.  Islam is merciful” who will not be confused by such contradictory statements!  Let me tell you something.  Actually there is no confusion whatsoever if we follow the simple rule on abrogation.

 

This simple doctrine of abrogation says that when there are confusions (i.e. contradictory statements in Qur’an), the later verses abrogate the former contradictory verses. The result is that only the latest category of verses remains valid without any doubt.  That is why it is so important to know the chronological order of verses in Qur’an.

 

 Let us hear from a modern translator (Yusuf Ali is too old) of the Qur’an and Hadith.

 

“So at first ‘the fighting’ was forbidden, then it was permitted and after that it was made obligatory against those who start ‘the fighting’ against you (Muslims) and against all those who worship others along with Allah”.

 

 (Ref.  Introduction section of the English translation of Sahih Bukhari by Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, Medina Islamic University).

 

In the same section Dr M. Muhsin Khan writes further

 

, “Then Allah revealed in Sura Bara’at (9) the order to discard (all) the obligations (covenants, etc.) and commanded the Muslims to fight against all the pagans as well as against the people of the scriptures (Jews and Christians) if they do not embrace Islam, till they pay the Jizya (a tax levied on the Jews and Christians who do not embrace Islam and are under the protection of an Islamic government) with willing submission and feel themselves subdued (9:29). So they (Muslims) were not permitted to abandon ‘the fighting’ against them (Pagans, Jews and Christians) and to reconcile with them and to suspend hostilities against them for an unlimited period while they are strong and have the possibility of fighting against them.”

 

Jalaluddin Suyuti wrote Itqan fiulum-il-Qur’an in 1497 AD. This book is the Tafsir (explanation) of Qur’an and is highly regarded.  It is a compulsory reading for any one who wants to study Qur’an for its ‘real meanings’.  His another famous book is Istenbat al-Tanzeel.  In this book

 

Suyuti wrote,”everything in the Qur’an about forgiveness is abrogated by verse 9:5“.

 

Please read that above quote again if you are really serious about Islam. Remember that this verse has a chronology order of 113 (Remember?  There are 114 suras in Qur’an).

 

Islamic apologists often quote the following verses to portray the mercy and forgiveness in Islam.

 

To you is your religion and to me is mine…109:6

No compulsion in religion…2:256

Turn away from those who join false gods with Allah…15:94

 

Unfortunately, all those ‘goodies’ of Qur’an are canceled if we follow the Tafsir (explanation) of Suyuti and the doctrine of abrogation) regarding the verse of the sword (9:5).

 

Islamists love Ms. Karen Armstrong for her siding with them.  Ms. Karen Armstrong writes to fool the non-Muslims in believing what George Bush is drumming, ‘Islam is a peaceful religion’. Any one who has a workable knowledge on Islamic matters knows for sure that her writings are very misleading and does not tell the truth at all.  When Ms. Karen Armstrong writes by quoting verse 2:190

 

the only permissible war (in the Qur’an is one of self defense. Muslims must not begin hostilities”, (Time magazine October 1, 2001)

 

she is clearly being dishonest in telling the truth about the phase four of Islamic war which calls all Muslims to declare a total war on the house of Harb (i.e. the infidels abodes). Phase four of Jihad is valid until all the people of the world are converted to Islam. Thus, today’s Muslims are in perpetual war with the infidels whether they (the Muslims) are in an Islamic paradise like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh (recently included, previously not), Iran …or in infidel lands like USA, UK, Canada, France…etc.

 

Here is another quote from Alsaylu Jarar (4:518-519) by Al-Shawkani.  Shawkani is a famous writer on Islamic matters.  His writings are authoritative and are used by the Jihadis to justify their merciless actions.

“Islam is unanimous about fighting the unbelievers and forcing them to Islam or submitting and paying Jizya tax (protection money for the Jews and the Christians only) or being killed. The verse about forgiving them are abrogated unanimously by the obligation of fighting in any case”.

 

Can Ms. Karen Armstrong and other Islamists living in the comfort of non-Muslim freethinking society refute the above assertion by an eminent Alim (Islamic scholar)?

 

Please note that verse 9:5 is a very important verse of Qur’an.  This verse marks the transition from the phase of showing mercy (phase 1) and forgiveness to the unbelievers to the phase of open aggression on them (phase 4). As told before, this verse is known as the verse of the sword.  This verse cancels all the verses containing mercy, tolerance, and forgiveness to the non-Muslims (as many as 111 to 124 verses; you got to scan the entire Qur’an; anything forgiving, merciful, friendship is out).

 

Also, note carefully how the chronology order increases as Mohammad turns from a non-violent (like Buddha) person to a fascist nazi like Hitler/Mussolini/Osama/Ayatollah. In fact, we can safely conclude that Mohammad was a saint before the chronology order of the Qur’an was below 87 but he became a fascist dictator after this.

 

Again note that the chronology order in the final phase of open aggression against all non-Muslims of the world (phase 4) is almost the end (113) chapter (sura) of Qur’an (Remember? There are 114 suras in Qur’an).

 

Is lying allowed in Islam?  I must be a nut to ask such a question!  Of course, not, you say.  Lying is a great sin in Islam; at least the Islamists will let us believe this.  This is a complete delusion.  Muslims are allowed to tell lies in order to make the religion of Islam rule the world. Would you not believe me?  See for yourself what Imam Ghazali (another supreme Islamic scholar) says:

 

Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praise worthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (Ref: Ahmad Ibn Naqib al-Misri, The Reliance of the Traveller, translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller , Amana publications, 1997, section r8.2, page 745).

 

And what could be the noblest goal of a Muslim than to make Islam rule world? This is the secret why the Islamists constantly lie about their religion when they are in West.  Because, if they tell the truth, no one will be attracted to Islam.

 

Islamists often attack the secularists and freethinkers whenever they (secularists/freethinkers) quote the offensive verses of the Qur’an by ‘out of context’ arguments.

 

What could be more clear and forceful evidences / proofs than what has been told above that ‘out of context’ argument by the Islamic apologists is a total hoax?

————————–

*A double-faced head represented Janus, a Roman god.  

Kasem writes from
Sydney, Australia.  Comments could be made by writing to   abul88@hotmail.com

 

 

Note: The author relied on the English Translation of Qur’an by A. Yusufali and the English Translation of Sahih Bukhari by Dr. M. Muhsin Khan.  All references given are believed to be correct.  However, the author is not responsible for any misconception that a reader may have due to his consultation of other sources.

 

November 2, 2006

A reader from Worthing, West Sussex, recently attempted to buy a copy of Ian Buruma’s Murder In Amsterdam: The Death of Theo Van Gogh and the Limits of Tolerance in her local bookshop. ‘I’m sorry,’ said the sales assistant, ‘but the book has been banned.’Atlantic Books, who publish Mr Buruma, assure us that the book is not only freely available but also selling well. It turns out a wholesaler misinformed the bookshop. However, the assistant must take responsibility for the following – startling – suggestion: ‘Why not try Mein Kampf instead?’

Filed under: Freedom of expression, Multi Kulti — limewoody @ 10:42 am

http://www.peaktalk.com/archives/002409.php

October 17, 2006

Censorship and EUrabia in Disguise: Amateur ‘video bloggers’ under threat from EU broadcast rules

THE Government is seeking to prevent an EU directive that could extend broadcasting regulations to the internet, hitting popular video-sharing websites such as YouTube.

The European Commission proposal would require websites and mobile phone services that feature video images to conform to standards laid down in Brussels.

Ministers fear that the directive would hit not only successful sites such as YouTube but also amateur “video bloggers” who post material on their own sites. Personal websites would have to be licensed as a “television-like service”.

Viviane Reding, the Media Commissioner, argues that the purpose is simply to set minimum standards on areas such as advertising, hate speech and the protection of children.

But Shaun Woodward, the Broadcasting Minister, described the draft proposal as catastrophic. He said: “Supposing you set up a website for your amateur rugby club, uploaded some images and added a link advertising your local sports shop. You would then be a supplier of moving images and need to be licensed and comply with the regulations.”

The draft rules, known as the Television Without Frontiers directive, extend the definition of broadcasting to cover services such as video-on-demand or mobile phone clips.

Ministers argue that while television programmes should be subject to minimum standards, the content of websites should not be subject to EU regulation.

Mr Woodward is proposing a compromise that requires EU states to agree a new definition of what constitutes “television”. He said: “It’s common sense. If it looks like a TV programme and sounds like one then it probably is. A programme transmitted by a broadcaster over the net could be covered by extending existing legislation. But video clips uploaded by someone is not television. YouTube and MySpace should not be regulated.”

British criminal law already covers material that might incite hate or cause harm to children, Mr Woodward added. The Government’s definition of online broadcasting covers feature films, sports events, situation comedy, documentary, children’s programmes and original drama. It excludes personal websites and sites where people upload and exchange video images.

“The real risk is we drive out the next MySpace because of the cost of complying with unnecessary regulations,” Mr Woodward said. “These businesses can easily operate outside the EU.”

Ofcom, the media regulator, is also opposing the proposed directive, which it believes could discourage new multimedia business in Europe.

Mr Woodward is seeking EU member state support for the British compromise. So far only Slovakia has pledged support, but Mr Woodward believes that other nations will come onboard before a key EU Council meeting on November 13.

The influence of “user-generated” websites was demonstrated last week when Google bought YouTube for $1.65 billion (£883 million). Launched in February 2005, it has grown into one of the most popular websites. YouTube has 100 million videos viewed every day.

The House of Lords European Union Committee began an inquiry yesterday into the directive, which could also introduce paid-for product placement on UK television for the first time.

Lord Woolmer, the committee chairman, said: “The proposals bring within the regulatory framework areas of the media previously untouched by broadcasting legislation.

“Britain is at the cutting edge of new media and alternative broadcasters in Europe, and we are keen to ensure that the proposals will not damage this growing industry in seeking to incorporate them into EU regulation.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2407359,00.html

October 16, 2006

Steven Jukes (global head of news for Reuters News Service) – “We all know that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter and that Reuters upholds the principle that we do not use the word terrorist….To be frank, it adds little to call the attack on the World Trade Center a terrorist attack.”

Filed under: Freedom of expression, Left, Media — limewoody @ 8:43 pm

The man who likes to poke the world in the eye

Filed under: Freedom of expression, Media, Opinion — limewoody @ 5:10 pm
Linda Frum
National Post

Long-time readers of the National Post will know that former columnist Mark Steyn is one of Canada’s most gifted political writers, a man weirdly able to provoke laughter while forecasting the end of the world.

In his newly released book, America Alone, he argues that without vigilance and the unapologetic assertion of American force, we will all soon be living under Sharia law. And while Mr. Steyn muses in his book that he may not mind picking up a few extra wives, he worries that the rest of us may not like the system as much.

Mr. Steyn lives in rural New Hampshire with his (only) wife and three children.

LF You were born in Toronto, but live in the U.S. Are you still a Canadian citizen?

MS I’m a citizen of Canada, never been anything else. I don’t believe in dual citizenship.

LF So if you ever require rescuing by the Canadian government, you’ll deserve it?

MS I can assure you that if I’m ever calling the Canadian consulate in some godforsaken hell demanding that HMCS Toronto come and get me, it won’t be because I’ve called five other embassies in the previous 20 minutes.

LF In your new book America Alone you argue that: “America should proclaim the obvious: We do have a better government, religion and culture than our enemies, and we should spread America’s influence around the world.” On a spiritual/emotional level do you consider yourself an American?

MS Well, I don’t want to get into a whole kind of Michael Ignatieff pronoun-trouble thing. I’m sympathetic to him on that, because when I say “we” I generally mean “the West,” or “the civilized world,” or — more broadly — “the good guys.” I feel I’ve got a stake in the United States because I’m a resident and a taxpayer and I have my children in the public school system in the State of New Hampshire. So if I was writing about public education, I feel it would be quite reasonable to say “we.” It doesn’t mean I’ve tossed out my passport and signed up with the Great Satan once and for all.

LF Is there a quick answer as to why you live in New Hampshire of all places?

MS Long ago I was on an Amtrak overnight train from Montreal to New York and it broke down halfway, and they tossed us all off the train in the middle of the night. They sent a little bus to take us to a neighbouring inn, and I woke up the following morning and thought, “Actually, it’s quite nice around here.” I like New Hampshire because it doesn’t have a state income tax or a state sales tax, and it has a very limited government done at a very local level, which is my preference. On the other hand, there are great disadvantages. If you want to get a decent dinner, your best bet is to drive an hour and a quarter up

I-91 and eat in almost any small Quebec town.

LF Let no one say you are a self-hating Canadian. What a terrific endorsement for our cuisine.

MS I love Quebec. I’m not opposed to Quebec independence. I think it would be a huge laugh. The fact of the matter is they have a ridiculous independence movement, and they’re never going to go. Even if you threw a sovereign state at them, they’d refuse to take it. They’re no different from the Palestinians in that respect.

LF One of your best qualities is that you’re so insensitive. For example, when writing about what you call the most important fact of our time — the explosion of the Muslim global population — you say: “Those self-detonating Islamists in London and Gaza are a literal baby boom.” Making offensive jokes like that takes guts. Where do you get the courage?

MS Being offensive actually has its merits. An excessive deference to sensitivity is very harmful, particularly when you’re dealing with people so ready to take offence. I didn’t really think of it in an Islamist context until the fall of 2002, when I said in the National Post, something like: “Is it just me, or does Ramadan seem to come around quicker every year?” The point is Ramadan is every eleven and a half months. And of course I immediately got all these humourless letters from people saying, “Oh, you complete idiot! Are you not aware that under the Islamic calendar Ramadan comes…” Of course I’m aware! I’m making a cheap joke about it! It’s my standard Ramadan joke, and I’m going to do it every 11-point-however-many-months for as long as I live. I seriously do believe that it’s very hard to have a functioning society if you can’t make cheap jokes about each other all the time. One of the key signs of a shared culture is if you can all cheerfully abuse each other. In the space of the last five years the multiculturalists seem to have internalized the psychology whereby it’s taken for granted that you make whatever abusive jokes you want about Christians, but none of those same jokes can be made about Muslims. Well, the minute you accept that, I think you’re doomed.

LF Islam is the second-biggest supplier of new Canadians. Does it matter?

MS Well, I think at some point a profound question mark goes up about where a society is going. If you drive around certain parts of town you’ll see more headscarfed women. It’s the sort of thing nobody really thought about much before September 11th. We all assumed that everyone thinks the same, that everyone who gets off the plane at Pearson is coming because they want to be part of a multicultural, pluralist, liberal democracy. But what proportion of people are opposed to that view of society for it to become a problem? We’re not at that stage in Canada, but they’ve already reached that stage in Belgium, in the Netherlands, in France, in Scandinavia and in many other parts of Europe. I don’t want to see Canada having the incompatibility, the tensions that are now the absolute fundamental political dynamic in the Netherlands and Belgium.

LF Now that Stephen Harper is Prime Minister of Canada, is America still alone?

MS On that January night when he kind of snuck across the finishing line I didn’t think that Canada had voted for a Conservative revolution. Through the quirks of the Westminster system, Harper found himself in power. Since then he has not done what all the so-called realists and smart guys would have advised, and certainly not what the Mulroney government would have done. At every opportunity he has been incredibly grown-up about the realities of the world we live in and about the responsibilities that wealthy, powerful — and Canada is powerful, or would be if it would get over this kind of sissified, “My name is Joe and I drink Molson” view of the country — Canada is a potentially powerful country and needs to play its role in the world. I think the best thing about a man like Stephen Harper is that he’s not a revolutionary, but in his own way he’s not wasting any time, dragging us bit by bit to a point that is consistent with our history, consistent with who we are, basically, for the half-millennium before this concocted, ludicrous, completely obsolescent, Trudeau-PM fantasy took hold. Stephen Harper’s view of Canada’s role in the world is about where a serious second-rank power should be, and that’s the kind of country Canada was in 1945. That doesn’t mean he’s getting his orders direct from Bush’s ranch in Texas. It’s consistent with Canadian history.

LF Your book is very gloomy. After I read it, I glanced over at my three-year-old daughter and was filled with fear for her future.

MS Well, I’m in this for the three year-olds. My youngest child is six now, but my little girl and your little girl, when they’re our age, they will find a large number of places in what we think of as the free world, the developed world, far less congenial than we would. I mean, you and I would think nothing of hopping on a plane, going to London, Paris or Berlin. Those are going to be very uncomfortable places for a young, middle-aged Western woman circa 2020, 2030, and it’s precisely because we’ve taken for granted this very unusual period in history. We take it for granted that it’s a permanent state of affairs. It isn’t. It requires incredible vigilance and incredible effort to preserve it.

LF What can we in Canada do about it?

MS It starts in kindergarten. Every time you’re faced with a situation where a grade school teacher is telling your child patent nonsense, you should object. Every Canadian is the heir to a thousand years of constitutional evolution from the one civilization that has done the most to create the world we live in. Canada has very little to be ashamed of in its inheritance. Every country needs a heroic national narrative. Canada has actually got one. Why not tell it?

lfrum@nationalpost.com

October 7, 2006

The forbidden op-eds

Filed under: Eurabia, Freedom of expression, Global Jihad, Islam, Media, Multi Kulti — limewoody @ 2:04 pm

 http://michellemalkin.com/archives/006015.htm?print=1

I asked yesterday for translations of the op-eds criticizing Islam that have been banned in Egypt and that have forced one of the authors, Robert Redeker, into hiding in France.

Thanks to all the readers who have e-mailed their translations. Spread these far and wide. E-mail them to your friends. Post them on Egyptian online forums. Anywhere. Everywhere.

Here’s Redeker’s full piece (via Paul Belien, Extreme Center, and others; thanks also to Fausta, vigilantly blogging the story):

What should the free world do while facing Islamist intimidation?

The reactions caused by Benedict XVI’s analysis of Islam and violence highlight the underhanded maneuver carried out by Islam to stifle what the West values more than anything, and which does not exist in any Moslem country: freedom of thought and expression.

Islam tries to impose its rules on Europe : opening of public swimming pools at certain hours reserved exclusively for women, ban on caricaturing this religion, demands for special diets for Muslim children in school cafeterias, struggle to impose the veil at school, accusations of Islamophobia against free spirits.

How can one explain the ban on the wearing thongs on Paris-Beaches* this summer? The reasoning put forth was bizarre: women wering thongs would risk “disturbing the peace”. Did this mean that bands of frustrated youths would become violent while being offended by displays of beauty? Or were the authorities scared of Islamist demonstrations by virtue squads near Paris-Beaches?

However, the authorization of the veil on the street is more disturbing to public peace than wearing a thong, because it invites complaints against the upholding the oppression of women .This ban represents an Islamization of sensibilities in France, a more or less conscious submission to the diktats of Islam. At the very least it is the result of the insidious Muslim pressure on the minds: even those who protested the introduction of a “Jean Paul II Square” in Paris would not be opposed to the construction of mosques. Islam is trying to force Europe to yield to its vision of humanity.

As in the past with Communism, the West finds itself under ideological watch. Islam presents itself, like defunct Communism, as an alternative to the Western world. In the way of Communism before it, Islam, to conquer spirits, plays on a sensitive string. It prides itself on a legitimacy which troubles Western conscience, which is attentive to others: it claims to be the voice of the oppressed of the planet. Yesterday, the voice of the poor supposedly came from Moscow, today it originates in Mecca! Again, today, western intellectuals incarnate the eye of the Koran, as they have incarnated the eye of Moscow. They now excommunicate people because of Islamophobia, as they did before because of anti-communism.

This opening to others, specific to the West, is a secularization of Christianity that can be summarized thus:the other person must come before myself. The Westerner, heir to Christianity, is the that exposes his soul bare. He runs the risk of being seen as weak. With the same ardor as Communism, Islam treats generosity, broadmindedness, tolerance, gentleness, freedom of women and of manners, democratic values, as marks of decadence. They are weaknesses that it seeks to exploit, by means of useful idiots, self-rigtheous consciences drowning in nice feelings, in order to impose the Koranic order on the Western world itself.

The Koran is a book of unparalleled violence. Maxime Rodinson states, in Encyclopedia Universalis, some truths that in France are as significant as they are taboo. On one hand: “Mohammed revealed in Medina unsuspected qualities as political leader and military chief (…) He resorted to private war, by then a prevalent custom in Arabia (….) Mohammed soon sent small groups of partisans to attack the Meccan caravans, thus punishing his unbelieving compatriots and simultaneously acquiring the booty of a wealthy man.”

There is more: “Mohammed profited from this success by eradicating the Jewish tribe which resided in Medina, the Quarayza, whom he accused of suspect behaviour.” And: “After the death of Khadija, he married a widow, a good housewife, called Sawda, and in addition to the little Aisha, barely ten years old. His erotic predilections, held in check for a long time, led him to ten simultaneous marriages .”

A merciless war chief, plunderer, slaughterer of Jews and a polygamist, such is the man revealed through the Koran.

Of , the Catholic church is not above reproach. Its history is strewn with dark pages, for which it has officially repentaed. The Inquisition, the hounding of witches, the execution of the philosophers Giordano Bruno and Vanini, those wrong-thinking Epicureans, in the 18th century the execution of the knight of La Barre for impiety, do not plead in the church’s favor. But what differentiates Christianity from Islam is obvious: it is always possible to go back to true evangelical values, the peaceful character of Jesus as opposed to the deviations of the Church.

None of the faults of the Church have their roots in the Gospel. Jesus is non-violent. Going back to Jesus is akin to forswear the excesses of the Church. Going back to Mahomet, to the conbtrary, reinforces hate and violence. Jesus is a master of love, Mahomet is a master of hatred.

The stoning of Satan, each year in Mecca, is not only an obsolete superstition. It not only sets the stage for a hysterical crowd flirting with barbarity. Its importis anthropological. Here is a rite, which each Muslim is invited to submit to, that emphasizes violence as a sacred duty in the very heart of the believer.

This stoning, accompanied each year by the acciedental trampling to death of some of the believers, sometimes up to several hundreds, is a rite that feeds archaic violence.

Instead of getting rid of this archaic violence, and thus imitating Judaism and Christianity (Judaism starts when it abandons human sacrifice, and enters civilization; Christianity transforms sacrifice through the Eucharist), Islam builds a nest for this violence, where it will incubate. Whereas Judaism and Christianity are religions whose rites spurn violence, by delegitimizing it, Islam is a religion that exalts violence and hatred in its everyday rites and sacred book.

Hatred and violence dwell in the book with which every Muslim is brought up, the Koran. As in the Cold War, where violence and intimidation were the methods used by an ideology hell bent on hegemony, so today Islam tries to put its leaden mantel all over the world. Benedict XVI’s cruel experience is testimony to this. Nowadays, the West has to be called the “free world” in comparison to the Muslim world; likewise, the enemies of the “free world”, the zealous bureaucrats of the Koran’s vision, swarm in the very center of the frre World.

And here is a translation of German Professor Egon Flaig’s piece (thanks to reader David by way of Diotima – if there is a link for this, please send):

Islam wants to conquer the world by Egon Flaig”For we want the flag of Islam to fly over those lands again, who were lucky enough, to be ruled by Islam for a time, and hear the call of the muezzin praise God. Then the light of Islam died out and they returned to disbelief. Andalusia, Sicily, the Balkans, Southern Italy and the Greek islands are all Islamic colonies which have to return to Islam’s lap. The Mediterranean and the Red Sea have to become internal seas of Islam, as they used to be”.

These are not the words of Al Qaeda, they were taken from the programme formulated by the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan Al Banna, in a speech. The Brotherhood today has millions of adherents and spread out far beyond Egypt. Its intellectuals are working in Europe and the United States; they count as “moderates” and are treated accordingly by the media. Re-conquest of “lost” territory according to plan is part of the agenda of states, that is political communities, fighting about territorial power. How can it be part of a religion’s programme? Is Islam a religion like any other?

Since the beginning of the classical period between the ninth and the eleventh century Islamic jurists have divided the world into two parts, namely the “House of Islam” and the “House of War”. This dichotomy is independent of where Muslims live in large numbers, or even form the majority, but depends on where Islam rules supreme – by applying Shariah – or where it does not rule. So, this dichotomy is not religious in nature, but political. Between these two parts of the world naturally exists a state of war, until the House of War is no more and Islam rules the world (Sura 8, 39 and 9, 41). Thus, according to classical teaching, for the Muslim community there is a duty to wage war against the disbelievers, until those either convert, or submit. This war is called jihad.

While Jesus’ missionary call meant to convert all peoples, but to leave their political order untouched, Islam’s aim is to submit all non-muslims politically, but to leave their religion untouched, if it is a religion of the book. God’s general call to jihad is based on surah 9, 29. It is true though, that minute factions of islam did not accept this interpretation. The Shiites accept it, but demand that a true imam must be leading the Muslim community (and has been waiting for such a one for more than 13 centuries), so that for the time being they only feel bound to defensive jihad, in the case of attacks on the Muslim community.

On the other hand, the other factions, e.g. the so-called Kharijites, have radicalised the content of Sura 9.29: for them, jihad is an individual duty of each able-bodied muslim, which counts as a sixth pillar next to the other five cardinal duties. In the consequence of such teachings: when everyone has to either take part in the collective war against the unbelievers, or, should the Muslim community be too weak for the time being, has to wage war alone or in small groups, then assassinations and terror attacks are right. What the Kharijites demand for offensive jihad, most proponents of orthodox Sunnah-teachings demand for defensive jihad: when Islam is being attacked, or islamic territory is being invaded by infidels, jihad becomes an individual duty, e.g. a fatwa of the Grand Mufti of Cairo’s Al-Azhar university – against Israel – leaves no doubt about that. Any enemy power that acts according to the Hague rules of warfare and strictly distinguishes combatants and non-combatants will be in great difficulty. The state of war lasts so long, until the House of War is destroyed, and the world is conquered. This is why Majid Khadduri calls Islam a “divine nomocracy on imperialist foundations”. Peace treaties, which Islamic rulers closed with non-Islamic rulers, were only considered as cease-fires; this is why as a rule, they were only closed for no more than ten years. Two schools of jurisprudence permit no more than three to four years of peace. The short deadlines made it possible for the militarily superior Muslims to constantly blackmail their adversaries; this way throughout the centuries huge amounts of money and humans went to the Muslim side. When the paradigm of power shifted, Muslim rulers had to change their practice.

Thus in 1535 Suleiman the Magnificent made a peace with the French king which was to last for the lifetime of the Sultan – a break with tradition. Christian theologians tried to define, in the face of a plurality of states, what could be deemed a “just war” and what could not be deemed such. To wage war just in the interest of faith for the most part was not considered just. For Muslim scholars on the other hand, the “house of islam” is a political unit, which does not permit internal war, therefore only war for the sugjugation of infidels was considered legitimate and even a duty, as the famous fourtheenth-century scholare Ibn Chaldun categorically states: “In Islam the jihad is prescribed by law, because it has a universal calling and is supposed to convert all of humanity to Islam, be it of their own free will, or by force”.

The rules of engagement for jihad are flexible. According to Khadduri, anything is possible, from mercy to mass enslavement to mass killing, just like with Greeks and Romans. This is a fundamental difference between the holy war of islam and of Old Testament Judaism, which prescribed the killing of all males outside of Israel, and the killing of every living thing within Israel (Deuteronomy 20, 10-20). We usually are outraged at what the Crusaders did in Jerusalem in 1099. Yet, the Crusaders acted in accordance with the ius bellum of the times, Muslim conquerors did the same all the time and everywhere: 698 they hit Carthage, in 838 Syracuse; the notorious vesir of the Cordoban Caliphate, Al Mansur, led 25 wars in 27 years against the Christian realms of northern Spain, enslaving, destroying, laying waste. They hit Zamora (981), Coimbra (987), Leon, Barcelona twice (985 and 1008), then Santiago de Compostela (997).

The worst destruction was wreaked by the jihadis on Byzantine Anatolia, which was then still full of cities; the massacre of Amorium (838) has remained a symbol for a long time; the urban culture of Anatolia never recovered from it.

The Seljuk Alp Arslan had entire Armenian cities massacred, the worst being the capital Ani in 1064. Bat Ye’or’s evaluation therefore is more than justified: “Its lack of measure, its regularity and the systematic character of the destructions, which Islamic theologians had decreed to be law, make the difference between jihad and other wars of conquest”.Certainly, mass enslavement remained the favourite aim of the wars. That was the way in which, as early as the eight century, the biggest slave-holder society developed that world history has ever known; it demanded a permanent influx of new slaves, transformed the African continent into the biggest supplier of slaves, a destiny which Europe narrowly avoided.

The incredible speed, in which in 90 years an Arabian empire spanning from the south of France to India developed, with no single conqueror guiding the expansion, is unique. The world’s most succesful imperialism was admired by no less than Hegel: “Never has enthusiasm as such done bigger deeds”. If “enthusiasm” could do such a thing – what was its source? The answer is simple: martyrdom. Something happening in 963 in Constantinople may illustrate this: the emperor Nikephoros Phokas had just swept the Muslim invaders from Crete; now, he was planning a big war, to liberate eastern Anatolia and northern Syria from muslim rule. A council should help him: he pleaded with the bishops, to elevate soldiers dying in the war to the status of martyrs. Paradise would then have been assured for those soldiers. The patriarch stood up against the emperor: no church council could be empowered to anticipate God’s decision, only God could decide on eternal salvation.

A scene of historical significance. The emperor knew what was at stake. Again and again, the Byzantians had to witness the Muslim troops fighting with a ferocious courage that the Christians could not emulate. Fallen Muslims were considered martyrs of the faith and marched straight to paradise. The concept of a martyr is fundamentally different in the two religions. Christian martyrs imitate the passion of Jesus, passively submit to torture and death; Muslim martyrs are active fighters.

Decisive for the warriors’ acceptance of death was the firm promise of eternal salvation for those who die for the faith (surah 4, 74-76). Muslims should withstand a tenfold force (surah 8, 66-67); retreat was judged to be acceptable by later scholars if the enemy was at least double as strong, as Khadduri describes. As the decisive factor in any war is the fighting human being and his readiness to sacrifice himself, being on a par technically with the Arabs and Seljuks – in the long run, they had to succumb, if their morale was not of the same kind. Higher readiness to die is an enormous advantage in a fight- foolhardy operations can be waged and dashing manoeuvers to surprise and confuse the enemy; in that way, victory can be forced, that is technically and materially almost impossible, and battles are won, that would be lost under the usual circumstances.

Nikephoros knew about the military consequences of surah 4, 74-76; he was the first who tried to correct the conceptual military disadvantage of the Christian religion. But the bishops of the Eastern Church found themselves incapable of manipulating their theology in a way to create warlike martyrdom. This was it. The Byzantine emperors had to wage their heavy defensive wars against the permanent Saracen and Seljuk aggression without the help of religion, where they needed that help most.

Only the Western Church changed the theological-political situation: when Pope Urban II called the first crusade in 1095, he promised the Christian warriors forgiveness for their sins: fallen crusaders avoided divine judgement and were put on a par with martyrs in that respect, although they were denied that name.

The Pope as head of a monarchic church did just that, what the Council of Eastern bishops had not been able to do: he dispensed salvation. The papal church now could have the kind of “holy war” islam had been waging for centuries. What is the difference between Crusade and jihad? A Crusade could only be called by the Pope, and thus remained a rare occurence – compared to the countless, neverending and ubiquitarian jihads of the islamic world.

And the goals of the Crusades remain precisely defined; in November 1095, Urban II defined reason and aim of the crusade: “it is obvious, we must give help to our brothers in the east as soon as possible. The Turks and Arabs have attacked them and have invaded the realm of Romania (Constantinople) and by invading the lands of these Christians ever more deeply, they won seven battles, killed or captured a huge number of the Christians. If you don’t oppose them now, the faithful servants of God in the Orient will not withstand this storm much longer”. The first Crusades were meant to either help Christians in need, or to liberate the holy places in Palestine or to liberate Christians that had been subjugated by Muslims. On the other hand, the Muslim scholars always kept firm to their final goal, to conquer the “house of war” and subjugate all infidels.
Urban II was right. Had Constantinople fallen in 1100, the enormous military power of the Turk armies would have plagued Europe four hundred years earlier. Then the manifold European culture probably would never have been: no free urban constitutions, no constitutional debates, no cathedrals, no renaissance, no scientific boom, because in the Islamic world, free – Greek! – thinking was dying just at this time. Jacob Burckhardt’s evaluation – “A stroke of luck, that Europe as a whole could ward off Islam” – means, we owe about as much to the Crusades, as to the Greeks’ victory against the Persians.

But, have the Crusades not been abused? Certainly. Crusades “derailed” and were “abused”, like the one that led to the conquest of Christian Constantinople in 1204. But that happened much more often with jihads. When slaves became scarce, emirs did not merely wage wars against non-Muslim peoples, who had to be enslaved anyway, but more and more often against Islamized peoples, under the pretext, that they were no true Muslims. That happened mainly in Africa and against black Africans, e.g. when first in 1468 Songhay and then the Moroccans in 1552 invaded Mali, or when in the 18th century religious reformers waged their jihad against Muslimized Hausa cities, which led to the creation of the Sokoto-caliphate – containing the third largest number of slaves after Brazil and the American south. Africa to this day suffers from the consequences of this permanent jihad with its genocides and mass-enslavements

Well, and what was the political order that the Muslims waged their holy wars for with such vehemence and success? For Shariah. A political order, which for one strictly separates masters from the subjugated and secondly takes political and social order away from human influence for the most part. Let’s talk about the first aspect: According to the Shariah, the Muslims are masters, the followers of other “book religions” – Christians, Jews, Parsees, Buddhists, are subjugated, Dhimmi. These were not religious minorities, but huge majorities, especially in Syria, Anatolia or the Christians of North-Africa.

The subjugated were not allowed to carry weapons, they were unarmed, thus not ‘real men’. Christians and Jews had to wear special colours or pieces of clothing (this discrimination was the origin of the “Judenstern”) so as to be visibly “dhimmi”; they were not allowed to ride on horseback, only on mules, to remind them of their subjugation; they paid a special tribute (jizyah), that they had to pay personally, while being given a slap on the head. They had to let themselves be beaten by any Muslim, without being allowed to defend themselves; if a dhimmi retaliated, his hand would be cut off, or he would be executed. A dhimmi’s witness did not count against a Muslim, who only had to pay half the fine for any crime committed against a dhimmi, and could never ever get executed for any such crime. On the other side, the most cruel methods of execution were reserved for the dhimmi.

Even the discrimination against the Jews, installed by the Western Church in the 4th Lateran Council in 1215, four hundred years after Islam, and which seems so barbarian to us, did not intend and did not lead to such a degree of humiliation and demeaning of people. A special horror was brought by the Turkish rule: from 1360 up to a fifth of Christian children were abducted into slavery. They were forcefully converted. The number of slaves through four centuries must have been millions; hundreds of thousands of choice boys among those were raised to be fanatical Muslims and elite fighters, the notorious Janissaries: a politic meant to systematically increase the Muslim population and slowly exterminate Christians. It was successful. “Dhimmitude” put non-muslims in a state of radical “otherness”. To call people in this state “second class citizens” is a euphemism.

In the same way national socialism divided humans into master-race and subhumans on racial grounds, so Shariah did it on religious grounds. As the first world-religion, Islam created an apartheid, where Christian or Parsee majorities were colonised and slowly Islamized. Islamic tolerance meant: tolerate the subjugated as humiliated and demeaned. All this is well known via studies about “dhimmitude”. But who wants to hear about the millions of victims?
Islam religiously “cleansed” huge territories: the second Caliph made the Hijaz, Arabia except Yemen “judenrein” and “christenrein”; the alternative was either to convert, or to be forced into emigration. Except for some Old Testament cases no religion ever before had done that. In the same way the Almohadis and Almoravids “cleansed” Spain after the breakdown of the Caliphate in 1031: tens of thousands of Jews and Christians had to either convert or flee to the Christian north of Spain, or the Levant. Certainly, English and French kings and the kings of Spain later on did the same – they applied the Muslim recipe in doing it. And the pogroms? Since the Caliph Al-Mutawakkil (847-861) waves of persecution again and again hit the Orient and North Africa, where Jews and Christians were forcibly converted, kicked out or massacred. The destruction of churches went on and on right until the century before last. Slowly, the rosy picture of Muslim Spain created by European anti-imperialism in the 19th century loses its fake colours. A scrupulous study of documents shows a different picture below that. In 889 in Elvira and in 891 in Seville, there were massive pogroms against Christians. In Moroccan Fez in 1033, 6000 Jews were massacred. 1058 Christian Antioch was forcefully Muslimized with torture and threats of death.

The first large pogrom against Jews on European soil happened in 1066 in Muslim Granada, 1500 Jewish families were killed. In 1135 the Jewish quarter of Cordoba was burnt down, it might be good, not to know the number of people massacred then. In 1159 all the Christians in Tunis had to chose between conversion or death. At this time, the vital Christianity of North Africa was completely wiped out. The pogroms in Christian lands are nothing to be proud of in European history, but their scope lags behind the ones in the Muslim world. We urgently need a comparative study of religious oppression.

Let’s talk about integration of the Jews? Nowhere under the rule of Islam, not even in the Spanish Caliphate, were Jews citizens of their own cities, they always remained subjugated. In some German cities – Worms, Augsburg and others – during the high Middle Ages the Jews were citizens, albeit of special legal satus. They had the right to carry arms and were better off than poorer Christian people. Right until the 14th century, when their situation got worse, they were far better integrated than Jews in Muslim Spain could ever hope to be. Who thinks highly of political integration cannot but prefer Augsburg to Cordoba. All this has been well known in academic circles for fifteen years. But who wants to hear it?

To ignore the past means to re-live it. He who keeps on spreading the fairytale of muslim tolerance, stands in the way of those Muslim intellectuals, who seriously work towards a reformation of islam, which started out so promisingly in the 19th century. He steals away their chance to overcome a past, which threatens to become a horrible presence. If the reformers could achieve a radical de-politicization of islam, the muslims could become real citizens of their states. That would leave the highly spiritual religion, which fascinated not only Goethe. Hegel called Islam the “religion of sublime”. It could become that.

More from AllahPundit on the jihadists’ death threats against Redeker.

Brussels Journal reports:

Pierre Rousselin, the editor in chief of Le Figaro, apologized on Al-jazeera for the publication of the article. A number of Islamic countries, including Egypt, banned Le Figaro following the publication of Redeker’s piece. Mr Rousselin said the publication of the op-ed was a mistake. He said the article did not express the paper’s opinion. The article is no longer available on the Figaro website.Mr Redeker has written a letter to his friend, the philosopher André Glucksmann, describing his ordeal [French text here]:

“I am now in a catastrophic personal situation. Several death threats have been sent to me, and I have been sentenced to death by organizations of the al-Qaeda movement. […] On the websites condemning me to death there is a map showing how to get to my house to kill me, they have my photo, the places where I work, the telephone numbers, and the death fatwa. […] There is no safe place for me, I have to beg, two evenings here, two evenings there. […] I am under the constant protection of the police. I must cancel all scheduled conferences. And the authorities urge me to keep moving. […] All costs are at my own expense, including those of rents a month or two ahead, the costs of moving twice, legal expenses, etc.It’s quite sad. I exercised my constitutional rights, and I am punished for it, even in the territory of the Republic. This affair is also an attack against national sovereignty – foreign rules, decided by criminally minded fanatics, punish me for having exercised a constitutional right, and I am subjected, even in France, to great injury.”


Here is a translation
of Le Figaro’s cave-in.There is a blogger conference call being organized by One Jerusalem in support of the third critic of Islam I blogged about last night, Bangladesh publisher Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury. It’s October 3. Get in contact with One Jerusalem for more info.

***

October 6, 2006

Hymn

Filed under: Diverse, Freedom of expression — limewoody @ 7:53 am

Who is the person
who longs for life
loves days, to see good

save your tongue from evil
and your lips
from speaking “deceit”
ask for peace
and pursue her.

Via HNN.

http://hnn.us/blogs/3.html

September 28, 2006

Pope Benedict and the Meaning of Words

Filed under: Freedom of expression, Global Jihad, Islam, Sprog, Terror, Western civilisation — limewoody @ 2:01 pm

 In these accelerating times, the passage of a fortnight offers sufficient distance from an event to make it amenable to even-handed scrutiny. And so, fortified with the calm aloofness of a detached historian, two weeks after Pope Benedict XVI gave his now famous lecture at the University of Regensburg we can aver that the ensuing controversy was based on three errors: his statements were taken out of context, they were misunderstood, and they were judged on their form rather than substance. On balance, his unduly conciliatory tone on the subject of dialogue with Islam notwithstanding, the Pope has said and done nothing that a reasonable person could or should find objectionable.


http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/cgi-bin/newsviews.cgi/Islam/Pope_Benedict_and_t.html?seemore=y

Older Posts »

Blog at WordPress.com.