.jpg)
From Pyjamas Media:
Islamic terrorist activity is not a new thing in the United States, but it seems that recently there have been a plethora of foiled plots - not to mention some which have tragically been executed, most notable the murder of Private William Long in Arkansas.An organization in the national spotlight recently for producing a documentary identifying several dozen potential terrorist training compounds in the U.S. has offended the sensibilities of Maine bureaucrats, who have fined the organization $4,000, alleging among other things that the group sent out mailings containing an “inflammatory anti-Muslim message.”
The group in question, the Christian Action Network (CAN), received notice of the fines and the fundraising ban in a May 6 letter from Elaine Thibodeau of the State of Maine’s Department of Professional and Financial Regulation. Enclosed in the letter was a prepared consent agreement for CAN to sign agreeing to all of the state’s allegations, waiving all rights to appeal, and agreeing to pay the $4,000 fine. As part of the consent agreement, CAN is required to agree to all of the state’s allegations, including their assertion that their mailing amounted to hate speech.
“These bogus charges and fines the State of Maine has imposed are nothing but an attempt to stifle our free speech and silence our organization from speaking out about the steady creep of radical Islam in America,” CAN president Martin Mawyer told Pajamas Media. “We fully intend to appeal the state’s penalties because if they successfully silence us here, we will quickly find that we won’t be able to speak out anywhere.”
CAN was in the news earlier this year following the release of their documentary, Homegrown Jihad, which details dozens of compounds across the U.S. operated by Pakistani Sheikh Mubarak Gilani, who has previously been identified in State Department reports as a terrorist leader, and his group, Jamaat al-Fuqra. The documentary looks into the past terrorist acts of the group in the U.S., including the assassination of two moderate Muslim leaders, the firebombing of non-Muslim religious facilities, and an investigation by Colorado authorities that led to convictions and lengthy prison sentences. These activities have been covered in several FBI domestic terrorism reports and a more recent assessment by the Center for Policing Terrorism. Other prominent convicted terrorists, including “shoe-bomber” Richard Reid, D.C. Beltway sniper John Allen Muhammad, and NYC landmarks bomb plotter Clement Rodney Hampton-El, have been identified as former members.
Frankly, the authorities should be looking into the details of these camps and their funding - not persecuting those who do.
But then, many Americans seem to be coming to all the wrong conclusions about Islam and its intentions - less than a decade after 9/11, New York schools will celebrate Muslim religious holidays:
With demographic changes like that underway, it won't be very long before America really does have to adopt every means possible to placate the Muslims in its midst.The New York chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-NY) today joined a coalition of community organizations in welcoming the passage of a resolution by a committee of the city council that calls for adding Muslim holidays to the school calendar.
Resolution 1281, passed overwhelmingly by the New York City Council Education Committee, calls on the "New York City Department of Education to incorporate the Muslim holidays of Eid Ul-Fitr and Eid Ul-Adha as observed school holidays in the school calendar for the city school district of the city of New York" and also asks that the state legislature "pass, and the Governor to sign into law, A.8108/S.5837, an Act to amend the education law, in relation to requiring that Eid Ul-Fitr and Eid Ul-Adha be school holidays in the city school district of the city of New York."
The Coalition for Muslim School Holidays - a broad interfaith, inter-ethnic coalition of labor, community, civil rights, and religious organizations - also urged the entire city council to support including Muslim holidays in the school calendar.
"Today marks a positive step forward in the effort to provide a more inclusive educational environment for all students," said CAIR-NY Community Affairs Director Faiza N. Ali, who sits on the steering committee of the Coalition for Muslim School Holidays. "This resolution advances religious liberty, recognizes the growing Muslim population in New York and promotes our great city's values of diversity and inclusion."
She noted that the New York City area is home to some 1 million Muslims, one of the fastest growing and most diverse religious populations in the city. More than 90 percent of Muslim students attend public schools and one in eight public school students is Muslim.
CAIR offers a booklet, called "An Educator's Guide to Islamic Religious Practices," designed to promote diversity and accommodate Muslim students in educational institutions.
Posts
90 comments:
The issue here is that there are good Muslims and bad Muslims as there are good and bad Christians, Jews and any grouping.
Thus, the collective attack againt the entire community is by definition bigotry and if organized and published is an offence in the varying states of the US and in all European States.
That is easy to understand.
The other point is that dhimmi is the classical Qur'anic inspired instruction for Islamic countries on how to manage non-Muslim communities. In no way does it put in second-class, place additional burdens or financial penalties on such communities, rather it was there to protect them. Of course what politicians did in history is another matter.
It is important to get the facts right, isn't it?
Erm, in what way is pointing out potential Jihadi camps run by a suspect organisation 'victimising an entire community'?
America has suffered far more explicitly Muslim terrorism than Jewish or Christian terrorism.
I somehow doubt that there are Hassidic Jews holed up near the Rockies planning which mosques to bomb, despite your valiant attempts to pretend that Jihad is not a phenomenon unique to Muslims, particularly in the modern context.
Now, as for dhimmi status - protect them from what, exactly?
Earl, if the dhimmis were not protected, they would be fair game for muzlim marauders to kill, rape, etc., all in the good old peaceful global jihad to make the world a better (more muzlim) place. Its that kind of protection; they get to live. How could you ask for anything more?
Dr. D:
Yes, but he needs to explain (not that he will be able to).
It sounds to me very much like Mafia protection:
'Wouldn't it be terrible if something happened to you; best pay us to make sure that no evil criminal gangs burn down your restaurant or break your legs...'
Solkhar...your moral equivalency will not convince me, nor will your weak argument for the protection of the 'ummah'.
So go practice your 'taqiyya' on someone else!
"When the Bedouin addressed the Sasanian King of Kings one of them explained what they were doing. When Muhammad had secured the allegiance of all the Arabs, "he ordered us to start with the neighbouring nations and invite them to justice. We are therefore inviting you to embrace our religion. This is a religion which approves of all that is good and rejects all that is evil." It was, however, an invitation that was difficult to refuse:
If you refuse, you must pay the tribute (jiza). This is a bad thing but not as bad as the alternative; if you refuse to pay, it will be war. If you respond positively and embrace our religion, we shall leave you with the Book of God and teach you its contents. Provided that you govern according to the rules included in it, we shall leave your country and let you deal with its affairs as you please. If you protect yourself against us (italics mine) by paying the tribute, we will accept it from you and guarantee your safety. Otherwise we shall fight you."
This was how jihad was interpreted during the early eighth century, and probably before." (Hugh Kennedy, The Great Arab Conquests, Phoenix, p. 51.)
That is easy to understand.
It is important to get the facts right, isn't it?
It is wonderful how someone reads on a website and thinks they have an understanding of the word taqiyya, let alone dhimmi.
"OF course what politicians did in history is another matter". Christians in the past have destroyed most of the peoples of South America, gave no rights to Aboriginals in Australia (until 1970), countless wars, massacres etc, but everyone knows it was the greed of man, not the teachings of the Bible that is responsible.
It really beggers to wonder what the objective of posters who want to go down this track with Islamic teachings. it is fine to make that argument that there are fundamentalists here and now and they must be stopped, but to make issue on the religion itself automatically returns back to that same point.
Giving an example of the Sasanids is historic, thus I can also quote the examples of Pope Urban II who declared the first Crusades but allowed the Christian Princes to spend the first year massacaring Jews in Europe before even setting forth to the Holy Lands.
Since facts are so interesting.
Jhiza tax was not a penalty, it was a tax to ensure that everyone paid their civil taxes. In the case of the Muslims, they had a tax that because it was incumbant on all Muslims to pay, non-Muslims did not.
Then again, we can go back to history and see examples of where it was done accordingly and fair and many more that was not done fairly. In Morocco the tax was levied not in gold or currency but in salt as it was a valuable item. To this day, the Jewish quarters in the old Medinas in Moroccan cities are called "Mellah" which is the word for salt. The French commedian of Moroccan-Jewish decent Ghad al-Mellah still has that name.
The issue of dhimmi that makes non-Muslims leaning to the right who are bent on depicting everything evil in Islam is that they will imply that it distinguishes non-Muslims from Muslims in a Muslim society. They will equate it as being apartheid.
A Muslim who by definition using the Qur'anic reasonings for the system will say that it is identifying faith, you are either Muslim or you are not. Under faith, non-Muslims do not have the obligations that Muslims have so how can you then be treated exactly the same. There are other areas that Islam acknowledges "differences", such as the obligations of men and women and thus they are separated in Islam. In both cases, it does not say "lesser in value or importance".
Yes, it is very important to get facts right and not mix them with emotions nor the words of political agendas;
Yes, it is very important to get facts right and not mix them with emotions nor the words of political agendas. - Solkhar
So when are you going to start?
Solkhar:
You claim that Jizya was not a tax of subservience or second class status, but in your first comment you said:
"In no way does it put in second-class, place additional burdens or financial penalties on such communities, rather it was there to protect them."
Now answer my question - protect them from what? Who?
What would have happened if they had not paid and 'protection' had been withdrawn?
I don't want another essay that uses many words and says little - I just want you to answer a straight question.
I regret missing the question before. You are missing the point, they are not related. If my language implied that, blame it on my English.
It is a historical fact, in the centuries before, all communities required protection from the states they lived in. Thus the insistance that Christians required protection under an Islamic state meant that "the state was obliged to protect them".
The giving of the tax was the payment for such, it was the tax that all residents paid to the state, in this case via that method, the protection was not because of the tax.
Or, dhimmi is a "set of responsibilties" that included ..... equal protection, ensuring fare legal and trade hearing, ensuring that taxes were paid though a particular system etc.
That should be clear.
Lastly, and not to go on.... what regimes over the centuries did is another matter but I repeat that what the Qur'anic based instructions are does not include subservience, second class, no rights, that is just web-site crap.
Erratum:
The giving of the tax was the payment for such, it was the tax that all residents paid ...
should read
Thus, the giving of the tax was not for that, it was the tax taht all residents paid .....
I actually think in French.....
There are good Christians, and bad Christians who fly planes into buildings. There are good Christians, and bad Christians who behead Muslim schoolgirls. What a load of moral equivalence.
Islam spread by the sword, and is maintained by the sword. Muslims cannot leave Islam, without the fear of being murdered. These ex-Muslims are even afaid of their own families. In fact the greatest danger comes from that source. Amazing that such a thing can happen in this century but it does. What a shame.
Do Christians, Hindus, Buddhists murder ex-Hindus etc as a matter of duty? Nope. Even the bad Christians or bad Hindus would not stoop to such barbarity. Yet Muslims do this, and that actually makes them good Muslims.
What we see here, is that what defines 'good' or 'bad' in the Muslim context, is different from the Western one. We are thus talking across a great chasm- we may use the same language but our understanding is different.
Allowing Muslims into the Christian West is without doubt the biggest mistake the West has ever made. It may well prove fatal.
The question we now have before us is how to manage the non-Christian heritage communities in the West.
You might want to say that you missed the question before, but now that you are aware of it, please go ahead and answer it.
Of course we all know you won't, but it's okay, you don't need to. We all know the answer already, and if anyone didn't then they need only read the relevant passage from "The Great Arab Conquests" which I proved earlier.
Nick.
Nick, the question was answered in that same response you quoted from and I know it is clear as I have had three comments on it from separate sources and they understood it well enough.
DP111 obviously reads to many websites and not enough history books.
Certainly Christians have not driven planes into buildings, they do not suffer armed militant fundamentalists within their ranks.
But history has proven that Christians and others have had their moments. What happend to South America under the banner of Christianity? What about the inquisition? What about the Christian White Australia Policy that lasted up to the 1970s? Did not just 20 years ago "Christian Milita" butcher every man, woman and child in those two camps in Southern Lebanon, did not the Bosnian-Serb Orthodox Christian Militas claim it was to protect their faith when they killed 20,000 in Srebrenica? (I know it, I was part of the Dutch Government Inquest into possible Dutch negligence at the time). What about the Catholic Church's silence during the Holocaust or about child sex abuse, etc, etc, etc. Did you forget about the Christian villages destroyed and its inhabitants murdered or forced into homelessness by Hindu-Chauvenists in Assam?
Your emotive, almost robotic paraphrasing does not stick.
There are good Christians and Muslims as there are Evil ones. At present the evil Christians are not living in the environment of poverty plus weapons and war and their clergy are within a secular system which is what much of the Muslim World misses. That is all. The rest of what you said and implied is .... as I said, you obviously read to many websites that miss substance and real reference.
You merely mentioned "the states they lived in." But what did this "state" consist of? Was it the state they had always lived in, or was it a new "state" that was being imposed upon them by an alien force that had conquered their country? And what was it, or they, going to do, that someone would need protection from?
Feel free to refer to the quote from Kennedy which I provided earlier.
Nick.
Actually, Solkhar, the issue here is that Muslim beliefs are so all-encompassing, and so self-deluding, that Muslims are clinically insane.
Solkhar...you keep reverting to moral equivalence as if that form of twisting words will gain you kudos.
I have been studying Islam for more than five years now, I believe my understanding of the term 'taqiyya' is adequate enough for me to know, to be wary of any Muslim with an agenda. You included!
I also have a firm understanding of the word 'dhimmi' which is what we Westerners will all become, if people like you manage to get your way.
Islam is a very dangerous ideology that does not recognise any God other then Allah, and after all, this is the emblem on the Saudi flag along with a sword in which to conquer.
You still have chosen to not answer the Earls question...why is this? Because you know the answer you have to give, unless of course, you revert to taqiyya!
We are not kafir to be hood winked by followers of a seventh century warlord, such as yourself, under the pretext, that what you write to us has any relevance in the modern world. We do not wish to travel with you back down the time tunnel to a time where acts of barbarism are the norm.
If Islam is such a wonderful way to live then why are you residing in a western nation?
Why not be a real Muslim and dwell in poverty in some third world shit hole, as Allah wills to most of his subjects across the world?
Politicians arose from the practice of democracy and said political system has nothing to do with the administration of Islam which is dictated to the Muslim, by Islamic theocracies. There are no Islamic parliaments which would be anathema to Islamic law and never will be until Islam is reformed and brought into the 21st century.
But, will that ever happen?
Nemesis,
I doubt very much that your "five years" has to do with formal study of Islamics or the Qur'an, as both your responses and questions show little understanding, if not zero. I would take my 28 years of combined study, being a Muslim and living, working and travelling throughout most of the Muslim World as a little bit more concrete.
I noticed the good old Evangelical Twist in your phrase, answer me correctly (the way I want) or you are a liar with the subject of naas-el-taqiyya. I presume you are totally unaware that this particular term is both unused and almost totally unaware by almost all Muslims except actual full-blown fundamentalists, but of course the web-sites that you chose to read will claim otherwise.
I suppose from your text about living in the west that you are unaware that I do not. I chose to live in Morocco were I am now semi-retired.
I refute almost all you say as pathetically ignorant and I will point them out for each of them starting with "dhimmi", which is for purposes is a historic term and has no relevance. I have been explaining that time and time again. It was a Qur'anic guide and very few rulers in the past bothered to take it correctly, because of the greed of men. Rather like the ten commandments never being followed either. The concept was a historic commitment to protect, not create second class, but it does identify differences.
"... if people like you manage to get your way."
I assume you are talking about a grand Caliphate, which is about a rediculous term as possible, made up by again fundamentalists and absolutely almost all Muslims on this planet know nothing about and would laugh if they heard it. All but fundamentalists put that as being "in another world" or a philosphical aspiration IF somehow all the world became a Muslim. Utopia would be a good example. The reality is, even if the world tomorrow turned Muslim, which Caliphate, a Shi'ite, a Maliki Sunni? How about a Wahhabist Sunni which are the people claiming this and they are the enemy, the enemy of most Muslims as well. Get a grip.
There is no danger or evil in Islam and you are arrogantly telling me my religion that I have followed, lived and studied since 1982 with your rather miopically telling me that the mad ravings of a group of fundamentalists (albiet dangerous ones) represents Islam. Another example of your total lack of understanding (and my doubts about your 5 years) is the core basic phrase:
" لا إله إلا الله محمد رسول الله "
(lā ’ilāha ’illa-llāh muḥammadun rasūlu-llāh )
Which does not as you imply conquer or abuse those that do not believe. It simply says, which is in every call to prayer in the Muslim World that there is no God but Allah.
.... contineud
...... from previous
I should be like you and say that the entire Christian World is in fact Fallwell Evangelicals, and that your goal in life is to convert every heathen to embrace Jesus and that you are all willing to manipulate government to do it, every soldier has a bible in Arabic or Pushtu and that is the real reason for being at war in those places.....etc, etc. That is what you sound like.
Ah, that is right, the next point was answer correctly or you will be reverting to taqiyya, I have answered that question now twice.
You still have chosen to not answer the Earls question...why is this? Because you know the answer you have to give, unless of course, you revert to taqiyya!
But only for you I will repeat it: The Qur'anic referenced tax on non-Muslims was there to balance the fact that they did not pay the same obligitory taxes put on Muslims. We are talking about historic Islamic states and all residents need to pay taxes. Or are you somehow implying that Christians should not pay tax like anyone else. I also pointed out that the concept of dhimmi was there to protect Christians which also raised a question, why do they need protecting. In those day, everyone needed protection, it was not because of the tax. Needless to say, not all Muslim rulers followed this rule, and I am sure not all Christian rulers were very "Christian" either. Vlad the Impaler was after all a Christian.
Hood winked and kafir, back in time etc. This is the biggest laugh of all. Again this is the assumption that equates to presuming that some 75yr old berber women in the mountains of the Atlas with her goats and fig trees is plannning the great conspiracy, as is a 14 year old boy with is oxe in a field outside of Jakarta.
.... continued.
.... third and last.
Your attitude is really apalling, that again you just simply believe the rantings of a dangerous minorty of violent radicals in the mountains of Afghanistan and some Mosques around the world as representing us all when it does not.
There is no doubt that there is violence, wars, corruption, fundamentalists unfortunatly in power in many places, but that represents only a small portion of life, certainly not all the Mulim World and I think your confusing this with your own xenophobia simply has obscurred your reality.
It comes down to that old problem of sitting in your comfy chair pondering how better you think you are then anyone not in your world. Add to that the paranoid dillusional rantings of those with an agenda pointing out at some real serious problems with fundamentalists and you get a product like yourself who if the subject was martian invasion you would be in your shelter right now talking on radio to others about the resistance.
Though I stay out of commenting on American politics and consider myself neither left or right, Obama is correct in at least realising that to fix this world is by first America and the West realising that there is a world out there other than your own and that giving respect is the only way of receiving it.
"If Islam is such a wonderful way to live then why are you residing in a western nation?"
I live in Morocco.
"Why not be a real Muslim and dwell in poverty in some third world shit hole, as Allah wills to most of his subjects across the world?"
I live in Morocco, the number one tourist destination for French nationals, I live outside of Marrakech, three doors down from me is the holiday home of Celin Dion, from my roof I see in the distance the house that Francis Ford Capola bought. My son's school is next to the old house of the late Yves St Lauren.
"Politicians arose from the practice of democracy"
This is a rant. Most muslim countries do not run on Theocracy or in fact Sharia. Those are the minority fundamentalist states.
If you are educated, then you should also know that democracy is an overly used and abused word and the real term is "good governance". Democracy only works in countries with good economies, high education and no other issues that risk corruption. The forcing of western style democracies is considered by most to still be the greates tragedy that faces the third world resulting in the catasrophies of Zimbabwe, Congo, Liberia etc (not all non-Muslim).
Most Muslim countries are also running on secular legal systems with about half of those using Sharia as a guide to those laws dealing with morality.
Nemisis, so what is clear is that all you have said so far is in reality, and to use a good English language expression - talking out of your arse.
What you have also shown is a lack knowledge in international poltics, economics and geography. Your assumption that the third world is a creation of Islamic theocracy, which it is not, that the entire Muslim World believes or sucks up to fundamentalists and that over and over again, only those in the west are right.
Most of us Muslims, be they born in our out of the Muslim World hate and suffer to some form or other from self-righteous bigots, be they our own fundamentalists or people like you. Both feed of each other and it is the phrases that you use that give ammunition to the real danger - militant Islamists that "I told you so, how dangerous the Christian west is".
It's interesting to see inside the Islamic mindset, and I think we should all enjoy Solkhar giving us this opportunity.
What's immediately clear about Solkhar is his arrogance, & the way he seems to think the entire world, nay the whole cosmos, revolves around him.
Check out the poster "j.mills" putting Solkhar in his place on Richard Dawkins' website. (Link.)
Solkhar seems to think that the entire world needs to hear the truth from him.
Anyone disagreeing with Solkhar is not guilty of an intellectual mistake, but is (in Solkhar's mind) morally deficient. What an attitude!
Solkhar lied blatantly about his own religion in order to try and smear Geert Wilders, and I caught him out bonny as you like. He lied about The Lambeth Walk. Same again.
Solkhar won't deal with any of that though. We shouldn't expect him to. After all, he is a Muslim. In his mind, he must be seen to be right at all costs. What a laugh!
The strategy employed by Solkhar is now oh so familiar. No Westerner can ever truly understand the religion of peace. You need a Muslim to explain the facts of life to you. And not just any Muslim. You need Solkhar. If you disagree with him you're morally deficient. If you actually take the trouble to show that he's wrong, he won't take that on board and adjust his thinking accordingly. (Which any rational person would do.) Instead Solkhar plays the victim card, which none of us has ever seen before, eh?
All this would be mildly surprising if we were talking with an educated Westerner. But we shouldn't be surprised when Solkhar behaves in this self-centred, bloody-minded, error-strewn way.
After all, Solkhar is a Muslim. That's the core of his identity, and it's reflected in his thinking, and in his conduct towards unbelievers.
There are just three words to bear in mind when reading anything Solkhar has written.
Muslim.
Liar.
Agenda.
Solkhar
Dont try and evade the issue. Can Muslims leave Islam freely without having to live in fear of their lives?
The real tragedy is not Islam, but the fact that those who would like to leave this fascist and totalitarian ideology, have to live in fear.
You should be ashamed of yourself that you are defending this insane ideology that is Islam that does not allow freedom of conscience.
And why should I not read web sites. If I did not, then I would miss your wonderful essays.
As for Christianity and what was done by Christians, it was done against the teaching of Jesus Christ. The contrast with Islam is that those who behead innocents by the score, do so from the example of mohammed. Islam is the religion of the sword. In its passage through the world, Islam has left a butcher's yard of corpses in its trail. And this is what you defend.
Nick
Thanks for gthe link. J Mills has certainly cleared the matter up.
solkhar....you make it sound as though being a Muslim has more relevance to life than the average infidel. Unfortunately, Islam does not foster free expression outside of it's theology, so therefore it is doomed to remaining in the seventh century!
You assume to know a lot about me personally, is that why you have taken to openly attack me? Or is it because what I say rattles your cage?
You live in Morocco? An ex French colony which one could equate to being very western in it's outlook?
And on that score, most Islamic states are Kingdoms, Shiekdoms or Theocracies. Only Turkey and Iraq could be considered democratic!
Dhimmi and Kafir are now openly expressed by the Imans in most Western based Mosques. So in that regard, I guess we could both agree that the terms have now been resurrected.
I began to study Islam because of one factor. I'm an ex cop, and during my years spent apprehending all kinds of criminals the one kind that stood out most in my mind, was the Muslim from the Lebanese and Pakistani families.
These thugs were not just every day criminals, these guys had become criminalised at an early age due to the influence of their Imans and families. Living in the 'ummah' amongst the infidel tends to make the young male muslim an ideological fanatic, who thinks nothing of stealing from, and raping the women of the infidel.
Bin Laden has made quite plain his plan for world conquest!
He even followed Mohammeds dictate to 'invite' your enemy to convert before attacking.
Mohammed is the role model for all young Muslim males to follow. Surely you do not deny this?
There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet-so where does that dictatorial sentence leave the infidel?
I am not a religious person but, I do believe in God. I also believe that every religion should be judged on its merits. On that basis alone, Islam, in my opinion, is one religion which either needs to reform, or be eliminated.
Like you I too could fill up this blog with comments, but will not because in the end the Western notion of democracy and freedom of expression is light years apart from that which you try to proselytise.
Nemisis, this is how emotions play into comments.
I do not proselytise, never have and have no intention to do so. I rather object to it, guess it was those JW and Mormons that used to knock on the door all the time.
Your continuing falling back to the assumption that Bin Laden runs the show when he is despised my most Muslims. Your ignore the fact that most Muslims fear fundamentalism more than westerners do.
Your own experiences in the police should have given you an opportunity to understand that one group does not represent the rest. I was a diplomat for 22 years and the later part within the national security aparatus, so how come I learnt that? Two years on exchange with InterPol in Paris told me the same, those police attached new it also.
Your simplistic attempt at an excuse for understanding Morocco, 'an ex-French colony' is as badly defined as Pakistan is an ex British colony as its reasons for what exists in the UK now.
Theocracies are for my part a horror, they should not exist, I have made that clear. I actually have no problem with Monarchies if the result works, such as here and perhaps three other locations. Democarcy is an over-used and abused word and is politicized so much that it makes a mokery of what it really stands for. Liberal western style enforced democracy is one of the single most devastating causes of chaos in the developing world, with Africa being the best example. Zimbabwe, Congo, Liberia are perfect examples of what happens when you put a system which is designed for countries with stable economies, high level of education and stability AND that there is no other historical/cultural system in place that can do the job.
I think you have to go back to learning Islam and not local cultural practices or just observing fundamentalists. Get out and about and discover that there is as many if not more moderate families out there, equally faithful and do not go for the Wahhabist interpretations of Qur'an and Haddiths that slay appostates, consider women as property and non-Muslims as animals. The rest of us consider them heretics.
J.Mills is an example of someone who can produce well worded questions within the framework of his own convictions. It is not worth arguing with such, it is rather like attempting to debate with a Jehovah Witness with his folder full of responses and preemtive arguments.
Such people as that and some here can make their arguments sound so logical, well constructed, can twist words and focus on grammar but in the end, they do so from their armchairs, have never bothered to go see for themselves, lived amongst or even sat and discussed issues, views and faced ....... "realities".
Like I put in my blog, over three years I have joined various forums, encourage or raise a few points, to understand how people react and comment.
What have I learnt above all from this, that a lot of people love their armchairs and if they cannot see the truth or the reality from that armchair, then it obviously is not the truth or a reality and will go through extrodinary lengths to justify that.
I enjoy certainly too much free time, especially now in Summer periods when clients are inactive and thus continue to spend time on such debates or arguments but if it helps expose more rediculous examples of xenophobia, bigotry or "arrogance-inspired-ignorance".
Do not confuse my words with saying I am better than you, my faith is this or that, I hate those that proselytise in any religion. I would defend also anyone who bases their bigoted opinions on incorrect views and fake realities on any faith, culture or details.
Erratum ..... "I would defend AGAINST anyone who bases their bigoted opinions on incorrect FACTS and fake realities on any faith, culture or details."
(I still think in French first).
Such people as that and some here can make their arguments sound so logical, well constructed, can twist words and focus on grammar but in the end, they do so from their armchairs, have never bothered to go see for themselves, lived amongst or even sat and discussed issues, views and faced ....... "realities". - Solkhar
How do you know this? Oh that's right, you're all-knowing.
Or maybe not, eh.
Try developing some humilty, you arrogant ass!
J.Mills is an example of someone who can produce well worded questions within the framework of his own convictions. It is not worth arguing with such .. - Solkhar
Yes, those pesky rational thinkers, operating within a logical framework. They'll nail people like you every time.
Solkhar
I'm truly happy that you are investigating. I certainly hope that you never adopt islam as your faith. If you do, then be aware that you may find it extremely difficult, and very possibly, injurious to your health and well being, if you change your mind.
Islam has killed more people in its Jihad then any other religion or ideology. The communists killed more in one century, but Islam holds the record. The communists as an ideology are now defunct, but Islam marches on, its track marked out in trails of blood.
Nemesis:
I'd be interested in hearing a bit more about your experiences, if you don't mind. Leave a comment here or send me an email, if you like.
I've heard snippets about these problems in Australia, but never actually heard details from someone who has lived there and experienced it.
Nick:
It's always the same with the Solkhars of the world - disagree with diversity or the mulitcultural project and you clearly live in a tiny hamlet, greet your neighbours with 'oo'er, my flower', and think we're still fighting the Second World War in an effort to excuse your burning hatred of the other.
After all, how could anyone who lives in a 'diversified' area or has read anything about Islam think we have a problem?
I was talking to an educated friend, a barrister in a London court about this - and his response was 'you clearly haven't experienced enough diversty'.
When I reminded him that I'd taught in Germany in a heavily immigrant school, had all but grown up in parts of London, and I'd actually had about my fair share of 'diversity' already, he just looked away and shook his head.
I have a bet running with another friend as to how long it will be before he notices and admits how 'diversity' is helping parts of London... Can't be long now, he's on the front line after all.
Nick:
P.S. Loved your second comment!
How dare he, that damn J. Mills and his propensity to produce well worded questions within the framework of his own convictions.
D¨111
I love it when people think they know facts and then spout them without a thread of reference, and in this case reality.
"Islam has killed more people in its Jihad then any other religion or ideology. The communists killed more in one century, but Islam holds the record. The communists as an ideology are now defunct, but Islam marches on, its track marked out in trails of blood."
Actually, if you look in the books there are two very big errors in what you say. First of all, technically speaking, there has only been two Jihads that were sanctioned by the Muslim World. The first at the time of the Prophet Mohammed in defence against the attempt to eradicate the Muslims. The second in the 11th century in response to the declaration by Urban II of a Holy Crusade against Islam, which by the way resulted in the slaying of tens of thousands of jews before even leaving Europe. Though "political leaders" claim Jihad from Saddam Hussein to Obama, the five main Islamic Colleges (the religious authorities who have the right to declare Jihad) all have rejected these.
Now, as for who has killed more people over the centuries, that prize by far goes to Christianity, with the destruction of South American civilization, continuous wars over 11 centuries in Europe, the effects of the inquisition, reformation, destruction of paganism and subsequent pogroms in Eastern Europe and this does not include the destruction of cultures, subjegations of peoples, forced changes and laws.
Get a reality check.
Oh, do not give me the "all done in the name of Allah" crap either, the vast majority of these events in Christian life was done under the Cross and we all know it. I do not blame Christianity for it though, nor do I condemn Jesus for warmongering, because I know it to be the acts of men. The same goes with Islam, certainly many attrocities, corrupt and despotic leaders and all under the name of Islam - but the answer is the same, the corruption of men.
My Dear Earl,
I can't link it here but if you visit Islammonitor.org I have a few posts you may wish to look at.
The post, Middle Eastern Crime, would be most relevant to this discussion.
I will email you with some more info in due course, and I thank you for allowing me to comment on this very fine blog.
Solkhar....you are truly blind to the world in general, if you believe what you have written in your comments.
May I suggest that you too visit the above site. You may wish to leave a comment or two as well. I have enjoyed communicating with you, you are not as other Muslims are, at least you will argue your points which I have appreciated. Thank you!
If Nemesis is a former or current police officer from Australia, then he should have no excuse for xenophobia or bigotry that he has shown.
Having spent a full 12 months attachd to both the Australian Federal Police in Canberra and with the New South Wales Police in Randwick and in Bankstown (Sydney) I know how they think. A part of that was during that time supporting a commision called the Wood Commission into organised crime. As I had worked on a similar commission in The Netherlands, I have (and still) training in terrorism-financing. Though that commission was about drug trafficking, the modus was the same. I know about the Lebanese groups in Sydney and I know about the groups of fundamentalists in their particular corner of that city (can't remember the name, Lukemba or something).
Australian Police are smart enough to know that there is a minority, that is causing the problem and they know there is a large group of racist white Australians trying to ensure that there is conflict. The subject of Racism in Australia is a big thing, it was only a year or so ago that Australia apologized to the horrors done to Aboriginals there. There are no more Tasmanian aboriginals, the first official known case of true and total Genocide.
FYI, my brother is a migrant and a resident of Melbourne and I have visted that country many, many times.
Islammonitor.org is one of those ratbag sites, seen it before.
Good example is go to the right hand side and there is a foolish item about Islamic Pirates of Somalia. Now anyone who actually looks into the subject will note that the fundamentalists in Somalia (of whom I am sure we all hate) tried to force the pirates to stop, considering it a "haram" practice.
The pirates are a totally independant creation, because of the years of anarchy and chaos in that country. If there was a Al Qaeda registered ship, they would hijack that too!
So why should I put value on such a site at all? If I post, all I will get is a hundred Colleen Mcollooch's who will just quote Jihadwatch or someother crap-site and if I press it they will go all emotional and say I do not want my children raped or some other illogical emotional rubbish.
Nemisis, interesting article and I read this after my last post.
I spent six months with the Wood Commission and what of course was not in the report was that the MECU was creating more social problems that in-turn did not support the role of fighting the very crimes that were happening.
It should also point out that the MECU was making it a racial issue instead of an actual organised crime subject (that was my advice to Justice Wood who agreed with me). Justice Wood and the Commission agreed that the subject of organised drug trafficking was to be tackled as such, like with other Asian groups and that approaching the community with support to get their collaboration was the most effective method, like was successfully done in The Netherlands.
As with other older style NSW Police Units 'or Squads as they like to say', it had the capacity to do good but in the end, they got "involved" in personal issues or became tainted as some famous cases came out and thus did not do their intended job.
Sorry Nemisis, disagree with you totally and even more so, not relevant to this topic - as it has nothing to do with Islam.
Mind you, I did point out that some of the destinations even back then were clearly going to groups which we now know are terrorism linked, but that is another subject.
Solkhar, as I said earlier, Islamic beliefs are so all-encompassing, and so self-deluding, that Muslims are clinically insane. Every last thing you've said here is an excercise in self-delusion because you cannot handle the real, modern world that the West created, and which has left you behind. I feel sorry for you, but that's as far as it goes, because Islamic Jihad, obsession and arrogance places you beyond help.
Please go and live with people who feel the same way you do - we'll be quite happy to leave you alone there. But understand this: we recognise your pious, manipulative bullshit for what it is, and if you and your like keep attacking the West, there will ultimately be NOWHERE for you to go.
The choice is yours; we've had enough of you. Now, bugger off.
Wake Up:
Well said.
I notice that despite Solkhar's moral objections to Australia's existence, his brother is currently enjoying their hospoitality over there.
Could he have been seeking asylum from disingenuous obfuscation and other assorted bollocks?
Solkhar said:
The subject of Racism in Australia is a big thing, it was only a year or so ago that Australia apologized to the horrors done to Aboriginals there. There are no more Tasmanian aboriginals, the first official known case of true and total Genocide.
Solkhar, how dare you use the memory of these dead people to make your point!
Do you really care about them, or about making societies built by Europeans seem evil and illegitimate?
I wish you to know that you are a vile hypocrite, and I have reported your comment to an Aboriginal rights organisation.
As for your nonsense about 'large groups of racist white Australians'...
Yeah, it would be their fault for objecting to abject criminality being imported for no good reason.
Would these people be genuine racists, or your definition of the word, i.e. those that object to their country being colonised with large numbers of people from completely alien and unassimilable backgrounds?
Solkhar:
I also find your consistent mentions of the 'South American civilisation' that European Christians apparently destroyed rather perplexing.
Firstly, there was more than one main culture in South America before the Europeans came, and secondly I'm not sure what sort of person considers the art of the most brutal forms of human sacrifice a tenet of civilisation.
Actually, on second thoughts, maybe I do know.
Actually, if you look in the books there are two very big errors in what you say. First of all, technically speaking, there has only been two Jihads that were sanctioned by the Muslim World. The first at the time of the Prophet Mohammed in defence against the attempt to eradicate the Muslims. The second in the 11th century in response to the declaration by Urban II of a Holy Crusade against Islam - Solkhar.
You mean books like, "The Great Arab Conquests" by Hugh Kennedy, which I have by my laptop right now, as it happens?
I find it very strange that Professor Kennedy, who has taught at St. Andrews, and now teaches Arabic at SOAS, has researched and written a book that covers great stretches of history, and of Islamic conquest, which you neglect to mention.
Well, maybe it's not so strange. After all to acknowedge the history described so eloquently in Professor Kennedy's book would undermine your obvious agenda.
You've tried the "Mohammad was only defending the Muslims against forces that were attempting to eradicate them" line before as well. So read this again. Kind of puts a different slant on things, eh?
For another perspective on Solkhar's ramblings, I would also recommend Occidental Soapbox's excellent Islamic Crusades series.
My Dear Earl,
You may be aware of some racial tensions between Indian students and 'Australian sacists' in the news recently?
These incidents, of where Indian students are set upon by groups of 'racists' and beaten while being robbed, are occurring on a quite frequently up and down the east coast, including Melbourne and Sydney.
The 'racists' as reported in the media, have had the Indian government protesting to the Australian government but, the perpetrators are never identified. Which then leaves the general impression that white Australians are responsible.
The 'racists' are in fact African and Somali youths of Islamic background, who true to their Koran, attack those of Hindu background.
Such is the bullshit of PC madness in keeping with our diverse multicultural society.
If Solkhar happens to read this comment then I wish to inform him that I am also a media representative for the Australian Protectionist Party(APP). One of our main policies is to cease all Muslim immigration to this country.
I just thought you would like to know that Solkhar!
Please look our site up on www.protectionist.net
Nemesis
Are you saying that the attacks on Indian students in Australia, were by members of the "religion of peace"?
How on earth could they have misunderstood the teachings of that fake prophet?
Solkhar
The Crusades lasted approximately 200 years against the 1000 years of Islamic aggression and Jihad against Christian Europe. The Crusades were moreover self-defence against the ongoing defence against the Jihad. That fact will not change. Islam was and is, a religion of the sword. It is too late in the day for your prevarications and obfuscations.
Quote: when they killed 20,000 in Srebrenica
The last I heard was a figure of around 8000, and that figure has been going down as new evidence comes in. The massacre was indeed bad, but there is no need to inflate figures in the way that Muslims always do. There were also reports that the Muslims of Srebrenica were not quite the usual innocents that is assumed.
The Islamic conquest of south Asia is one of the greatest tragedies in human history. It is estimated that a 100 million Hindus and Buddhists were massacred in the eastward expansion of Islam. This peaceable group of people, Hindus and Buddhists, just could not grasp the sheer barbarity of the Islamic invaders. The result - Buddhism was effectively wiped out in its native lands of India and Afghanistan. One can never be sure of numbers in massacre on such a scale, and going so far back. But the destroyed stupas and temples are a mute testimony to the scale of what happened, and the sheer barbarity of Islam.
The other thing is that the Christian or Western world is ready to acknowledge its past sins, but I have yet to hear a word of apology for the scale of misery and butchery that Islam has inflicted on an unsuspecting world.
What I find perplexing is that so many Muslims continue to live in the West while harbouring a very deep hatred of Western civilisation. Though you do not live in the West, I still have hope for you that you realise the sheer barbarity of the ideology that that fake prophet brought about.
Dear DP111, Precisely! But I forgot to include the Africans as Sudanese Muslims!
It seems that wherever groups of these cultures reside, trouble follows.
In Sydney it is the Lebanese Muslims who attack the Indian students.
In Melbourne it is the Sudanese or the Somalis, but never together!
There have been several incidents in other large towns or regional cities, up and down the east coast, which have gone largely unreported in the national media.
The party that I am a member of has gone to the extent of circulating leaflets, to alert the locals of the problem, and to expose the cover up by the authorities.
To make matters even worse whenever these thugs are caught and prosecuted they receive light sentences by the Courts.
Log onto, A Western Heart blog, for the latest.
Notice the usual Muslim rhetoric in "Christianity in the past did this and that". This is a setup for the all too common history revisionism by removing context of what a Christian really was back then, when compared to Christians here & now. See these days it is easy to catch the silly lies, like calling U.S. troops in Afghanistan & Iraq "Crusaders"...because we know first hand that the reasons they are there are not convert those lands in Christian strongholds, goodness Bush seemed to gush over Islam & was all too happy to see Sharia governments slide right in after toppling Saddam in Iraq, and exchanging the Taliban with a "happier - smiling" form of Islamic fundamentalism with Karzai. Plus we don't see Christian armies marching on anybody anywhere anytime, no special forces missionaries with Bibles in one hand & a XM8 in the other [lol]. No one would take it seriously , even though the liberal Bible hating mainstream media would just love to jump all over stories like that. But with history that extends many generations before any of us were alive, subtly twisting the history that any westward expansion of Europeans was completely fueled and inspired by a pseudo all encompassing political - cultural - religious war machine called "Christianity" by Muslims. Funny the Biblical definition of a Christian hasn't changed since Jesus' testimony was recorded, and His message hasn't changed. The word is a verb, meaning "Christ follower, imitator". Its so simple - If a person is not obeying what Jesus taught they are not following after His message. If a person professing to be a Christian murders, steals, lies etc.. as a matter of lifestyle - that person is obviously dishonest in their professed identity [ I understand no one is perfect and the bible says all have sinned, but there is a huge difference between conscious planned willful disobedience and someone screwing up in their discipleship walk on occasion].
Its been said earlier on here in different ways, a Jihadist terrorizing the non submissive infidel is a obedient Muslim. That is the sickness of Islam. A Muslim's moral compass is all relative to who the evil is done to and when to ensure the dominion of Islam...justification for crimes against humanity is far too easy to come by in the Quran.
Nemisis, your party membership probably explains why your an ex-policman or at least it shows that you are unsuitable for the job. Most countries would instantly ban you from active duty by your affiliation.
Unlike what the blog-owner thinks, I rather like Australia. My brother and I are very close and we see each other every year, with either one of us going to see the other, both enjoying our times.
The last time it was Tasmania and I had the chance to visit the museum dedicated to the exterminated Tasmanian Aboriginals.
I suggest the site's blogger go to the Museum and see what they say about genocide!
8,325 people were officially declared "massacred" within the city of Srebrenica, with 12,000 to 13,000 more going through the camps there and moved and missing presumed killed. I was part of a Netherlands delegation to ascertain any liability by the Dutch Blue-Helmet Peacekeepers that were there.
On that subject of South American Civilization(s), if I read that poster's comment correctly, its destruction under the banner of Christ was justified because of the blood-sacrifice of that culture?
DP111's absolutely pathetic excuse that the Bosnian conflict and attemtped genocide - sorry ethnic cleansing - was the direct responsibilty of the Ottomans does not stick, if you want to go down that track then the holocaust was responsible by the western allies who won in the Great War because their excessive penalties on Germany caused the rise of Hitler. Get real. The reality of the Balkans is that communist Yugolsav Dictator Tito moved ethnic communities around by force to prove that there was no culture other than "Yugoslav" mixed communities of Serbs, Muslims and Croats that pushed one or the other out and started the tension.
DP111 obviously pulls history out of the hat, adding what he/she likes to it. Yes the Persian/Moghul invasion of Asia was on par with the ancient Alexander's conquests, politics and history, the Mongols, the Han, the Tsu-an, the Voh-hoc all killed millions as part of what is simply brutal human civilization, only one of them being Muslim and it was not a Jihad and I am sure all breached the ethics of their respective religion and culture.
I am not interested in a tit-for-tat who killed more, they all killed others and in great enough numbers for either their own politics, cultural dominance or the way they were teached their faith.
In the end, I think we are arguing over the fact that I believe you are ignorrantly blaming a faith for the actions of men and the only retaliation you give back is the "actions of men".
So was Professor Kennedy pulling historical events out of a hat when he described the way the Muslims spead out of Arabia in to the Levant, the Sasanian Empire, Egypt, North Africa, and Spain - all hundreds of years before the first crusade ever took place?
Or do you just want to put actual historical events into your "hat" and (to use your own term) "avoid" dealing with them?
And despite your attempts to "re-frame" this discussion, I have to tell you is that what is actually happening is we're all enjoying seeing a Muslim like you making a spectacle of himself.
Your inability to think rationally, your ignorance, based on your own arrogance, your obvious agenda, your hypocrisy, your worship of a bloke who was no more of a prophet than Joseph Smith was - none of this is surprising. After all, you are a Muslim. But it's worth seeing on a website like this, just so everyone can see how twisted and deviant Islamic "thinking" really is.
Keep it up Solkhar, you're highly entertaining.
Solkhar:
No, I'm simply questioning your rather liberal use of the term 'civilisation'.
Thank you for showing your true colours yet again - suggesting Nemesis should be sacked for his political beliefs.
It's heartening to see how many people here see through you.
Perhaps you should enable the comments on your own blog, and we could all pop over and play there in response to future lies and outrageous slurs.
Dear Blogger,
Almost every western police force and many in the rest of the world do not allow police to be active members of political parties, they must resign their position. I think Australia is the same and Nemesis is retired (guess). But be sure when you become a policeman the first thing they ask you is do you have affiliation or strong support for... and if you do not but admit to strong opinion,they limit your work or not accept you.
To the "other poster", Professor Kennedy is describing a political/cultural/religous conquest just like so many others throughout history, to single it out and make more of it is simply foolish, Kennedy is not stupid enough to link it to it being only religious nor singular and especially to modern day fundamentalism.
Another common obfustication used by Muslims.
"the conflict is regional & cultural in origin, its just some people there happen to be Muslim" etc...
Except when you focus more closely on the motives for the conflict, why it is sustained and what are the goals, the reasons for it cannot be hid behind the initial attempt to deflect closer scrutiny. Hamas & Hizbullah provide you with all the Quran references our hearts can desire revealing their genocidal hatred of Jews . The land issue is confusing to some because they don't understand the Islamic concept of geographical conquest, once captured & ruled by Muslims is then forever Dar al-Islam...and must be held in submission at all cost. All these "regional" conflicts ranging from Somalia [and about how many other places in Africa?], Philippines, Kashmir, Thailand...all have the common denominator of Islamic Jihad doctrine being proclaimed by Muslims there. No matter if the circumstances very from conflict to conflict, a general theme is threaded through out them, subjugation of Dar al-Harb and it's non submissive infidels to Islamic rule.
p.s. And anybody who clarifies this is a bigoted Islamophobe :)
Solkhar's continued denial of the barbaric conquest and subjugation of the people of south Asia, is all of one piece of the Muslim mind. The massacres of the people of India, their subjugation and bondage, is one of the great nightmares of history. In Iran, the original and civilised religion of Zoroastrianism, was wiped out, the remnants of which are now to be found in India. Buddhism was wiped out in Afghanistan in an orgy of bloodshed by Muslim invaders. Places of learning, as they had no link or founding in Islam, were obliterated. One can go on and on, but for the likes of Solkhar, Holocaust type denials are the norm. The Western and Christian world, though having no need to apologise for the Crusades, as they were purely defensive in nature, apologised. The Muslim world has yet to apologise for their repeated invasions and subjugation of Eastern Europe, and the even bigger Holocaust perpetrated by Muslims on the people of India. Then there is genocide of Armenians, a well-documented event. Even in this case, Turkey and the Islamic world in general, have yet to apologise for it. In South Sudan, the Islamic government of Sudan instituted what amounts to genocide of Animists and Christians in south Sudan – no apology so far from Sudan or the Islamic world.
It does not surprise me that Muslims cannot apologise for mass murder and genocide. It is after all the principle of their founder. Solkhar is not interested in numbers of killed. How very generous and high-minded of him. But numbers do matter. The numbers who died in the Holocaust do matter, as it is numbers themselves that define it as a holocaust. Don’t you have any shame Solkhar?
The Bosnian civil war was terrible. But it was Muslims that laid its hatred in over three hundred years of continuous subjugation and murder of Serbs and Christians. This eventually led to the bitterness of that conflict. Moreover, Muslims were not just innocent victims -they killed and beheaded Serbs with the same degree of brutality as the Serbs. Solkhar would of course like to portray that the history of the conflict in Yugoslavia began with Tito, as that serves the Islamic cause - how pathetic.
In the UK, there are many ex-Muslims who live in fear of being murdered, just because they left Islam. Is there any religion worth calling a religion that goes about murdering its critics, and those who no longer wish to be Muslim? This is in the UK, the land of freedom, leave alone what happens in Islamic countries. How have we allowed to this happen?
There can be no accommodation or dialogue with Islam and Muslims, as their agenda is to destroy all or any societies, and replace it with the barbarism of sharia. They have no shame or honour, in the accepted sense of those words, but do have shame and honour when it comes to “honour” killings. Muslims do not just destroy the physical world but also the meaning of words such as “honour” and “shame”.
And this is where my fear is. We in Europe, in a fit of denial or neglect, have ignored the lessons of history. Allowing Muslims into Europe, is laying the foundation for a civil war in Europe just as bitter as in Bosnia, and of far greater magnitude.
revparadigm
Good points. All lands that were conquered by Islam are forever Islamic. I hope Spain and India understand this.
DP111's emotional rant is all but that with no knowledge of past, modern or recent history.
The example is the continued and laughable examples of the horrors of Bosnia which is very well documented and I had scene the aftermath with my own eyes. Though there were attrocities by all three main groupings, the Serbs outdid them all. In addition, the actions of the Muslim Bosnians, though some criminal and now some punished for it, was without fundamentalist ideals - something I am sure is very dissapointing to DP111.
I find it laughable that you mention that the Crusades need not apologize and was defencive, and again missed the historical facts. The first Crusade in the 11th century by Urban II, claming holy war against Islam resulted in the Princes and Knights, mostly from the germanic states, took one year to go to the Holy Lands. What made them take that long? They spent the time massacering Jews in Europe first.
The other falicy is to consider honor killing Islamic, when it is a world-wide ethnic/tribal phenomena that unfortunately is taking the slow-boat to dissapear. Arabs, Turks - either Christian or Muslim are famous for it as are those from the Balkans - Serbs are also into it. Russians, Indians - Hindu, Christian or Muslim, it is an issue even in Catholic Phillipines, try and get out of a conservative arranged marraige there.
If you wish to make a point DP111 the first thing is to get facts correct. I have seen you quoting per centages on other posts without reference - "some experts say" is the biggest cop-out of them all.
I do not deny that fundamentalism has taken over much of the spot-light and control of many lives in the Muslim World, it is the great enemy here. I will also point out that the fundamentalists in Europe are a great problem, demanding and causeing problems that would be unacceptable in most Muslim Countries - Why? That is the fault of the Euorpean nations after playing politics in those countries and as a ploy bringing in assylum seekers without understanding why they were in trouble.
So there are a lot of trouble, a battle against fundamentalism and you spend your time playing into their hands by showing your own pathetic agenda and giving them ammunition to say that their argument about antiIslamic agenda in the west is correct - AND making it more difficult for the moderates and basic conservatives fighting them off. Instead they have to deal with your illegitimate concerns first.
Ignoring the history of Muslim depredations in the Balkans has served the Islamic cause well. It is the same trick Muslims use in Kashmir or Thailand, or anywhere. The gruesome civil war in Bosnia was a product of the hundreds of years of Islamic depravity. To ascribe it to Tito's policy only, is naivette or dissimulation.
So when is Turkey and the Islamic world going to apologise, and I mean humbly apologise, for the genocide of Armenians? When is the Islamic world going to apologise for the Jihadi depredations that it inflicted on peaceful Buddhists and Hindus?
No emotional rants Solkhar, just facts. Honour killings, murder of critics of Islam, murder of those who wish to leave Islam - all pure Islamic - not fundamentalist or radical, just honest to goodness Islamic.
AND making it more difficult for the moderates and basic conservatives fighting them off. Instead they have to deal with your illegitimate concerns first.
Oh really Solkhar, you flatter me by thinking that Muslims are listening to an Infidel such as I.
Please do not use this trick on me, I have seen it far too often in the last few years. This kind of Taqqiya to delude the western media and mind should be beneath you.
I think it was Ibn Warraq who wrote,"there maybe moderate Muslims but there is no moderate Islam".
I hear your plea Solkhar, and I'm genuinely receptive to it. But you will have to be a little more honest, as well as contrite.
The moderate forces in Islam you mention, and oh boy have we been looking earnestly for them since 9/11, though without much success, have no traction within the wider Islamic world. There views always seem to be trumped by those you call fundamentalists. This failure has nothing to do with my views or views of those on this blog.
I suggest, that instead of castigating me and others who wish the Muslim world well, but have no traction at all among Muslims, you devote your time to Islamic blog sites, and get their readers to agree with your more moderate Islam.
Solkhar, in my comments in this thread, never have I resorted to personal attacks on you. Please understand that I do wish you well. I genuinely wish that the Islamic world will see that we all wish it well, for in that lies our own well being.
Islamic attacks on the Christian countries of the ME started nearly three hundred years before Urban II called for a crusade. For three hundred years Western Christendom ignored the desperate pleadings of Christian countries to come to their help from the Islamic Jihad.
As I wrote in my previous comment, I hear your plea and am genuinely interested in any help we can give, but as a first step, you have to be more honest.
DP111,
first when you attack my core faith as being evil, dangerous or perverted, you are making a personal attack on me. You will find that feeling will exist with all liberal moderate Muslims.
The Turkish genocide of Armenia, which most of not all Muslim Countries minus Turkey recognises, was done and protected by a mostly secular military and continues to be denied by a secular state. There is a good argument to say that if the state was not so obstinantly anti-religious that it would have had the morals to admit to the history.
You might find this insutling but your understanding of Balkan history and the effects of as rubbish. Under the Ottomans, each and every society remained in its location, were not shuffled around like playing cards as done by the communist regime and they were far gone and out of most memories way before the arrival of communism and the forced movements that followed and abused all three groupings. Ottomans also controlled not only Bosnia but many locations, did you see the same problems elsewhere as happened there? Please do not embarras yourslef in assuming you know better than qualified historians, those diplomats that worked there (including myself) and those that have lived through it - who also would disagree with you.
Your rather insulting assumptions go throughout what you have said, you carefully ingorned the remark I made (and a historically recorded fact) regarding what the first Crusades accomplished over the first 12 months - almost like it was justified.
The arguments over "Muslim" attrocities in Asia is also mute, as every army of every religion in those centuries used religion, ethnicity or culture as an excuse for conquest and power and I have said that now each time i have posted. In the end, if you want a count you will find the death-count still will by far be either under the banner of Christianity or under the Gods of the Roman Empire with the pre-Islamic Persians a third and Islam probably a fourth depending if you consider it one grouping (I am considering I did for Christians) but it might be fifth again depending on how your group the various Imperial Chinese states as one or many.
Last points, Ibn Warriq is incorrect and I told him so as have many moderates.
Honor Killing is cultural not religious which you also ignore though repeated many times, it is just as frequent in Russia, Ukrain, Belarussia, the Balkans, India, by Christian Turks and Arabs as much as Muslims and almost all tribal-based cultures.
If anyone criticises your faith then you say you don't like that.
Well tough.
This is the West. It's what we do.
If you want to live in a society where no criticism of Islam is allowed, then there are plenty for you to choose from. Pick one, go there and remain silent.
yours,
"the other blogger"
first when you attack my core faith as being evil, dangerous or perverted, you are making a personal attack on me. You will find that feeling will exist with all liberal moderate Muslims. - Solkhar
So what you're saying is there actually are no "liberal" or "moderate" Muslims.
You're all backwards in your thinking and bound irretrievably to the doctrines of an alien political philosophy which you think of as your "religion." You are unable to think rationally and analyse said political philosophy without throwing a tantrum, threatening people, burning effigies, publishers' houses, murdering film-makers, etc.
What a surprise that is!
Solkhar
Turkey is a muslim state. Whether it was acting in a secular capacity is besides the point - my charge still stands - Turkey has yet to apologise for the genocide of Armenians.
Your absolving the persecution of Serbs under Muslim Ottoman, is yet again part and parcel of the Muslim mind that can never see any wrong done by Muslims - it follows from the founder of the Islamic religion, where Mohammed made murder legitimate for any criticism of Islam, apart from other quite henuous crimes. And so it is that the murderer of Theo van Gogh feels no guilt for the murder, or any compassion for his mother's loss. The bitterness of the Bosnian civil war arose as a direct consequence of the bestiality of the Muslim Ottoman occupation. Your thesis of course starts from the assumption that Muslims are innocent – a view generally associated with Islamic fanatics or true believers- and therefore the Serbs attacked for no reason at all.
It seems that you regard any and all depravities that beset the Muslim community, as being cultural. Well that is a novel view, and would come as a surprise to many of the faithful.
The only question remains is why you bother to turn up at this, and other such sites. This site is to alert westerners of the danger that Islam poses to our society. Apparantly, you feel that this makes it difficult for moderate Muslims- a patently absurd reason. The real motive of course is to disrupt that process where westerners start to question the truth of Islam.
Finally, if you take criticism of your religion as a personal attack on yourself, then then that is your problem. If Muslims think so, then it would be sensible if you and others like you, moved to a Muslim country. Additionally, given that you take a criticism of your religion as a personal attack, you can hardly be deemed a moderate muslim.
I find your lack of international poltics, sociology and history becoming repeditively tedious.
I already agreed that the state of Turkey should acknowledge the genocide of Armenia, I also said that if it was not so anti-religious in its secular hisotry it probably would have. Over-secular states often lose morals principles.
I have neve obsolved anything, what is in the history books is clear, including what the Ottomans have done. Why you signify them as Muslim is still the problem here and shows an agenda that spoils your clarity perhaps?
I see wrongdoings by many peoples, empires, armies, attrocities and on, do not presume because I disagree with your warped sense of history means that I am not a realist.
Islam does not make murder legitmiate, taht is pure falicy and probably your reading a lot of rediculous hate-blogs and agenda based websites.
Your emotions mixed with your skewered agenda is showing, the killing of a Dutch filmaker or the attacks of an empire a thousand years ago are all examples of nothing but the evils and greed of men, that is all. If you want to give examples, I can pull out a book of the famous Muslims, Christians and Jews killed under the cover of Christian Inquisition and use that for some justification? Get real!
Your continuous ignorance in repeating what you think is history is not amazing, but pathetic. The Ottoman administration, of which you still love to add the title Muslim, in the region of Bosnia and the Balkans in general was in fact ruled by them but under local administration, the communities were not destroyed or their will not have been a Serbia or Croatia as well. That was the way the Ottomans did it and that is also why they crumbled so quickly at the end. During that time, people were not moved on mass and presumptions that mixing the cultures would not cause problems, especially if one is dominant. That was proven by what the communists under Marshal Tito did. That is the recorded history and that is what the historians agreed on - except you of course.
The serbs within Bosnia attacked, simply because they wanted to be part of a Serb authority, that is all. What you believe is simply utter rubbish.
I turn up on these sites to identify what is commonly known as agenda based lies. It starts with the fact that Islam the religion posses no threats to society.
The other reason is to alert everyone that agenda-based hate-sites are in fact helping the real enemy of fundamentalism, be it the dangerous radical Islamists or the seemingly benign but poisonous other sort in the west, often attached to also to the far-right of politics.
Anyone with a religous faith finds the attacking of their core beliefs as personal, that is certain. It will be also the case with all Muslims, be they moderate or not.
Since you are so good at making suggestions, then I make one myself.
Get a reality check, not to mention an understanding of history.
I see that you have recommended that I get a reality check, and to others to verify their facts.It seems in your eyes everyone is wrong, and you are right. However, has it ever occurred to you that you may be the one that is in need of a reality check, and your facts needing a re-examination on the basis of history, that just does not start out at some point that is convenient for your thesis.
The fact is that anyone who leaves Islam is in fear of their lives, this even in the UK. Any so called religion that does not allow freedom of conscience is beneath consideration. To absolve such as this, that it is cultural or the works of just a few men, is absurd.
If you find criticism of Islam as a personal attack, then that is your problem. In any case, I see that you do not see any difference between the moderate or the fanatic on this issue. I agree as well, that there no difference on the real core issues, therefore for you to claim that criticisms of Islam impairs the work of the moderates, is duplicituous at the minimum, or disruptive at the worst.
I see you have surrended your point and gave up on trying to invent a new history to suit your obvious malice.
Now avoiding the point altogether and falling for that predicable point of what you see from fundamentalist abuse in the UK as your proof. There's your sign!
No, your arguments fall flat DP111, still assuming the selfish acts of man is that of religion and it falls flat saying something of Islam must be a part of all these acts of horror and I will use again the proven evidence of history (real, textbook, not imagination like you). If I used your argument, then I must say that the conquests of South America, the inquisition, the butchery by Serbs so recently and even the apartheid of South Africa were all Bibie inspired.
Sorry, the reality check is necessary.
Save your breath Solkhar, you've been exposed. Your inability to take on board any criticism of Islam, and your insistence that you alone are the sole source of knowledge about anything and everything, are there for all to see.
Thanks for revealing the true "moderate" Muslim mindset on this blog, which aims to show the problems inherent with Islam in all its guises.
Your arrogance would be astonishing if you had been privileged enough to be brought up in the West, attended a Western university and been taught to think rationally.
To give just one example of what DP111 was saying: Hugh Kennedy is now Professor of Arabic in the Faculty of Languages and Cultures at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London. He has taught history at the University of St. Andrews, his research topics including the history of the Islamic Middle East, Islamic Archaeology and Muslim Spain. He has led many tours in the Middle East (See Martin Randall Travel) and has written "The Early Abbasid Caliphate", "The Prophet and The Age of The Caliphates", "The Armies of The Caliphs", "The Court of The Caliphs" and "The Great Arab Conquests: How the spread of Islam changed the world we live in". Professor Kennedy read Arabic and Persian at Cambridge.
But apparently you know better. You, the fantastic Solkhar, feel inclined to disrespect anyone, any source at all, that might possibly, in some small way, disagree with the worldview of the fantastic Solkhar. What arrogance!
Your agenda is plain as the big nose on your avatar's face. You wish to frame any debate on Islam in a way that allows no source, no matter who or what it might be, to be allowed to put forward any view at all, which might disagree with the holy words of the fantastic Solkhar.
As I said, this kind of "thinking" (which is actually its polar opposite) would have been surprising if you had been brought up in the West, and were able to think rationally. But it's not surprising. Not at all. After all, you are a Muslim.
The "other blogger"'s agenda is clear, its bigotry just as clear.
Born: Leidschendam, South Holland, November 1960.
Graduate 1980, Arasumus University, The Hague, Int.Pol, History and French language
Graduate 1982 ULB/VUB Brussels, MA in De-colonization and New Emerging Nations
I have had the privilage of growing up in the west and representing it including 20yrs in the foreign service.
I have no problem with SOAS, I have used their resources many times in the past. The writings of professors of history of which there are good ones and all with varying views, pointing out particular stresses here and there. I find that most of those books and articles are not in conflict with any of my views, they continues just to give the examples of empires, military leaders and others showing their human nature and their greed and still has nothing to do with the point I am making and you are carefully avoiding.
It is not the actual religious principles that you are describing, it is the greed of man. I make know claim to be Mr Perfect, I certainly do not defend the actions of "men" and I do not defend the actions of fundamentalists, go ahead attack them, I certainly do. I will continue though, as usual, to point out blatant errors of which frankly speaking you, DP111 and others are constantly making, of blaming the religion and not the people.
So I am still wondering what your ranting and raving was actually about?
Are you taking your meds? No sane, rational and medically well person would rant and rave as you do, twist historical facts to suit, ignore views which contradict your own, engage in fallacious attacks upon other people, imagine straw men, and then turn round and say hey I'm Curt Hennig here and everybody else in the world is wrong. You're either sick, or ... well we know what you are.
Still though, keep it up because as I told you already, one of the aims of this blog is to expose the problems in dealing with Islam as it really is, not just the "extremists" who supposedly swim in that sea. All of it. So called "moderate" Muslims included.
People like you, in other words.
So it's all very valuable to every one of us, the way you're revealing your twisted mental processes. It's also quite amusing. You've shot yourself in the foot so often now, you do realise that no one is going to take anything you say seriously, don't you?
But at least you're amusing. And there is some value to having a real figure of fun around.
Nick, read your posting again and tell me who is off thier meds? It was almost incomprehensible and needed to be read a few times. What did you actually try and say?
Give me an example of history being twisted or stated incorrectly as apposed to the imaginary items that NP111 gave?
You stated that I do not know the west and I am not from it, but I have shown you my background, of which you ignore - because you were shown wrong.
Your agenda is obvious, disagree with you so obviously I am a derranged extremist, a typical agenda based excuse that does not stick. What is laughable, if I was not a Muslim I would still be having the same argument, because it is against agenda based bigotry.
I think it is your foot that has all the bullet holes, your upset that someone has questioned your views and you have come out thrashing, you have yet to give an example of the great consipiracy that you claim and each historical example has either been interpreted incorrectly or fabricated and I have so far shown each for what they are successfully.
Now that you have run out of ammunition from the various phrases from websites, you do as all those caught out with their fingers in the cookie jar - personal attack.
Bill Engvall is correct - THERE'S YOUR SIGN!
Have the balls to face the music of what you said was wrong, that is all.
I've been reading this book and thinking about the way someone like Ayaan Hirsi Ali can become a good writer and rational thinker after attending a Dutch uni, learning to think logically, and renouncing Islam, and someone like you can become a poor writer and irrational thinker after attending a Dutch uni then forgetting how to think logically, and embracing Islam. It was interesting to see your response when I prodded you with a stick. The usual response. It's so easy to push your buttons Solkhar. You're that predictable.
And your outright hypocrisy is absolutely hilarious, Solkhar man. I've been somewhat sleep-depped lately, after doing lots of night shifts. Then back on to days: I'm getting too old for shift work, I think. Time for a change maybe. Anyway, I thought I could use a spot of light relief, and you haven't let me down. I mean, over this thread, you've been consistent: you're a real hoot! Thanks for giving me a laugh; do keep it up.
Aye Solkhar, go'n and tell us fit happened ti ye after your uni years, you certainly hinna taken on board what it is to think rationally, & have nae understandin of how freedom of speech benefits a democratic society, so what happened to you? Were you always a Muslim & therefore always had an agenda that prevented you fae absorbin Western principles into your bones or did you turn ti that false prophet later on in life, that false prophet that's about as genuine as Joseph Smith. He too dreamed that an angel came doon & spoke to him one nicht, & he too had someone else write doon a holy book for him, and of course he too liked the young lassies. Given the obvious similarities I wonder how you think the two are different. Why is Joseph Smith nae a prophet? If you can answer that question, you'll hae the beginnings of an understanding of how we think a your "prophet," that fella that took Aisha awa fae her toys and married her when she was six, & did the nasty with her when the child bride was only nine. Very Joseph-Smith-like behaviour!
I listened recently to Jon Krakauer's book, "Under The Banner of Heaven" and was struck by how similar Mohammad was to Joseph Smith. And I'm just thinking of another book I read, "When Men Became Gods" by Stephen Singular. The women in one Mormon group he described believed a rumour that continually circulated - Mormon men used to go off and have a get-together with Muslims to discuss how to treat their women. Well, you can see how that rumour had legs ... big love indeed!
I don't know if anyone else watched that (excellent) series with Bill Paxton, but the preacher gadgie played by Harry Dean Stanton was one creepy dude. Don't you think though, that if he took off his stetson and wrapped a dishtowel round his head, he'd look a lot like Solkhar's avatar?
You are of course quite right, I shouldn't have asserted that you hadn't had the benefit of a Western education, and all I can say is that if my language implied that, blame it on my English, which is not my first language. Seriously though, I've been pretty sleep-depped lately, and it's such a nightmare man, I'm finding it harder to deal with as I get that little bit older. I can't even concentrate on a good book properly, and well, it's just not right when your work interferes with your reading, lol .. What I should have said now that I've actually had a few hours sleep before engaging my brain, was that you showed none of the benefits of having had a Western education, because your Muslim agenda just seems to override everything else. It's fascinating to see how someone can end up so different from Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who actually embraced Western thinking (I believe she intends to write a book about John Stuart Mill) and renounced Islam. (As oppposed to the other way round.) It's common knowledge as well, that there is a real danger in British universities today, with the authorities taking down their trousers for Muslim groups all over the place. There have been several reports in UK papers about recruitment into some very dodgy groups going on. So it's interesting to think about that kind of thing.
And as I've been saying, it's interesting to see that people like you ignore what people like j.mills say when they catch you with your fingers in the cookie jar, or what respected academic writers like Hugh Kennedy have to say. That is to say, you ignore whole stretches of history (for Professor Kennedy merely records them) in order to twist the facts to suit your, ahem, "moderate" Muslim agenda.
But of course when you do things like that here, try to make out you're some sort of historical guru and in your next breath, turn round and ignore hundreds of years of Islamic history, you can't really believe that anyone here is going to take you seriously? Okay I'll push your buttons and call you a figure of fun, but that's because, now that your mask has slipped, that's what you are. I'll push your buttons and say that Mohammad is so very like Joseph Smith, but that's because he is. I've actually asked a few Muslims to explain why - without question begging - they think that their prophet is a real one and the Mormon's prophet is not. It's an interesting question, but I've yet to read a decent response.
Maybe you'll be able to provide one. Why do you think that your guy is a real prophet, and Joseph Smith is not?
Without question begging please ...
Talking of history, and since Solkhar stays in Morocco, I wonder if anyone else has read "White Gold" which tells the story of one of the many white Christian slaves who were taken by Islamic corsairs to sell in Africa; the fellow in question was called Thomas Pellow. There's actually a decent audio CD of the book available, if anyone wants to listen to the book on their walkman, or in the car.
Anyone want to hazard a guess as to Solkhar's response to this particular slice of Moroccan history?
As if we didn't know what was coming, eh?
a) tu quoque move
b) nothing to do with Islam
Oh, hold on Solkhar, that's your response right there, you don't need to say anything.
By the way Solkhar, another poster has said to you several times that your stated position appears to be that there is no such thing as a "moderate" Muslims because you are not able to think rationally about your beliefs, and frame every discussion on that topic in terms of "good" and "evil" which results in your labelling anyone who disagrees with you as morally deficient, and deserving of all the threats of violence and other nasty things Muslims have aimed at people like Robert Redeker, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Michel Houellebecq, Kurt Westergaard and Theo van Gogh.
So address that, if you can: how do you square your own immoderate beliefs with your claim to be (in some undefined way) "moderate"?
Isn't it true to say that if people like you can't recognise the value of free speech, won't have anyone criticise your religion, believe anyone who does so is morally deficient, and if there are hordes of people like you who will riot in the streets whenever anyone draws a picture of your "prophet" - your equivalent of the Mormon "prophet" Joseph Smith .. then there is no such thing is a "moderate" Muslim? Isn't the point made by that other poster (and by me earlier) correct?
I think someone has had a few to many or their button pushed, I think the series of postings here speaks for themselves.
Interestingly SOAS's Professor Hugh Kennedy says nothing that I dissagree with and I think if he were corresponding, he would say the same. The history is clear, the acts of what "man" does in the name of religion is famous and happened in both religions.
This blog's owner yesterday considered SOAS to be a harborer of left-wing sentiment.
Histories like White Gold are facinating realities of the history of how "man" at the worst is capable of terrible things. The history of slavery in the region of Morocco is well known to all, many of the people of the city of Salé (next to Rabat) are very proud of their mixed heratage of Arab, Berber, Andalous, Pirate (it was the actual home of the Barbary Pirates or Corsairs) and slaves. Similar histories exist to varying degrees, the best recorded and written of course being the history of slavery in America and probably the least being the abuse of slaves in the Congo by the Belgians (a more recent history) and that of the founding of settlement in South Africa and the bringing of Malay slaves - still a minority there.
Of course slavery has as much to do with Islam as it has to do with Christianity - none, but abused by both over a great long and very sad history.
To presume otherwise is a fool's game of agenda and hypocrisy.
It certainly went on far more than people realise. That poor lad, Thomas Pellow, was kidnapped during a raid on the English coast. I think I'm right in saying there's an island off Bristol (the name of which escapes me) and that one of the corsairs landed there and raised their green flag. The number of Europeans captured and held as slaves in North Africa is quite astounding. So was the way they were tortured to "turn Moor."
I suppose that would have been "bad Muslims" as you call them, doing all that though, eh?
Just as much as those runnig the Inquisition are "bad Christians", those Hindu-Chauvenists who are recently inspired villagers in Assam to attack Christians are "bad Hindus".
I wonder why you are wasting all our time continuing to attempt to show examples of "bad people" and trying to pin it on one particular group when the evidence, proof and what is accepted by mainstream academia know otherwise. That is called bigotry.
84 comments - I think this thread is also closed out of respect to the blog-owner.
What I was doing, as I said, was wondering about the history of the country you have chosen to live in, since history was being discussed and since that's where you have chosen to live.
I predicted that you would respond to the horrible events by doing two things, and lo and behold ...
I'm still waiting for your explanation of why you think your guy is a "prophet" and Joseph Smith isn't.
And I'm still waiting for your response to what was said to you earlier: that according to what you've said here on this thread, there appears to be no such thing as a "moderate" Muslim. Not if you really mean what you say.
You can start off with the Joseph Smith question if you like. Remember, no question begging.
Or, address the latter point, since it's been put to you several times now, and you've ignored it.
Take your pick.
I will answer to finish this thread, be certain I will not respond to further questions here.
If I said that there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim, then it is eather my poor English or your turning the words around to make it such. There are of course moderate Muslims, many of them. According to a UN census some time ago, the break-up on a basic global level is as such. 25 per cent of the Muslim World population is considered Moderate, 10 per cent are "agnostic" or uninterested, 15 per cent are radical or fundamentalsit and the 50 per cent rest are the "conservative majority".
Those statistics tell much. That the 15 per cent are controlling much of the bulk and that is because of illiteracy and poverty - because they reliy on the madrasas and mosques for education and information, and that is mostly controlled by those 15 per cent.
The other point is the sad reality that even though the moderates are larger in number than the radicals and that they hold the majority of civil-service positions in those conservative countries, they are doing nothing. Some say, and I agree partially, it is because they are demoralized because of the lack of support from the west, with agenda groups and websites like this one, painting an incorrect position on Islam.
It still boils down to that the actions of "men" screw things up on both sides, in the past and in the present.
As for the subject of your prediction of my answer - well the truth does not hide, if you imply anything sinister from this other than examples of history that exists in all parts of the world with all cultures - then you have a serious problem.
Your asking why I believe in Islam and say someone like Joseph Smith, I will not answer you other than it is a subject of faith and belief. I think your putting similarities do not work, remembering that I will not post again on this particular thread, I will not argue them either. Needless to say that Muslims will not accept any other prophets after Mohammed but interestingly on some issues Mormons and moderate Muslims support each other - particularly on family values and the problem with radical hate-groups.
As I said, you're so predictable. You have no answer to the question, "Why do you think your "prophet" is the real deal and other "prophets" aren't?"
You've failed to address the point put to you repeatedly about what you said regarding your immoderate beliefs.
And the claim that moderate Muslims do nothing to defend the religion of peace against those nasty, nasty "bad Muslims" (your term) because they don't get enough support from the West?
That's got to be the funniest thing you've said yet! The amount of government money that's thrown at any Muslim in the UK who wants to call himself "moderate" and start up a website so he can pretend to do something with "Islam" in the title is absolutely disgraceful. You're something else, Solkhar.
Keep it up, you're a funny guy.
If I said that there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim, then it is eather my poor English or your turning the words around to make it such. There are of course moderate Muslims, many of them. According to a UN census some time ago, the break-up on a basic global level is as such. 25 per cent of the Muslim World population is considered Moderate, 10 per cent are "agnostic" or uninterested, 15 per cent are radical or fundamentalsit and the 50 per cent rest are the "conservative majority".
Those statistics tell much. - Solkhar.
first when you attack my core faith as being evil, dangerous or perverted, you are making a personal attack on me. You will find that feeling will exist with all liberal moderate Muslims. - Solkhar.
So what you're saying is there actually are no "liberal" or "moderate" Muslims.
You're all backwards in your thinking, and bound irretrievably to the doctrines of an alien political philosophy which you think of as your "religion." You are unable to think rationally and analyse said political philosophy without throwing a tantrum, threatening people, burning effigies, firebombing publishers' houses, murdering film-makers, etc.
What a surprise that is, eh?
Nick
Oh and now that you've finally had to admit that there are people out there, like Hugh Kennedy, who are actually qualified to speak on the subject of the history of Islam, you can explain why you deliberately misled anyone reading this thread by ignoring the part of history covered by Kennedy's book, "The Great Arab Conquests" and you can also deal with his answer to the question put to you by the owner of this blog, which you never answered. What do non-Muslims need to be protected from? Feel free to refer back to Kennedy's quote, now that you have been forced to acknowedge that he's qualifed to comment on this matter.
Post a Comment