Islamic Terrorists Strike at Heart of London:Muslims allowed to walk the streets now?

[krsna 3]

How Much Islam is Responsible for Making Muslims Terrorists

 

By Ali Sina

 

Of course not everyone who reads the Quran becomes a terrorist overnight.

 

“Many people are infected by HIV but only a few get AIDS. Many people are Muslims, but only a few become terrorists.”

 

There are several factors that have to be present and the Quran is one of them.

 

One factor is xenophobia or the distrust of the non-Muslims. Many Islamic countries actively and systematically promote the hatred of the Jews, the America and the West in general. You must see yourself as the victim and the non-Muslims as the oppressors in order to hate them enough to kill them. A great number of Muslims, perhaps the majority, are at this stage. Not all these Muslims are going to become terrorists, but a great majority of them are convinced that America and particularly the Jews are responsible for everything that is wrong in their lives. Just read what they write on the Internet and you’ll see their favorite line of “defense of Islam” is to blame the Jews and America .

 

The other factor that makes them vulnerable to become terrorists is being hit by a crisis. Personal problems, especially if they are experienced at youth, seem greater than they actually are and tend to make life look meaningless. During these crises people often seek spiritual guidance in their religions and some youngsters, out of desperation, may even commit suicide. Here is where the danger lies. When young Muslims in crisis seek spiritual guidance from their holy book, they expose themselves to the negative influnce of the Quran and the seed of becoming a jihadi aka terrorist is sown in their minds. Life is already meaningless; suicide does not seem like a bad idea. In Islam you can have your cake and eat it too. You can become a martyr – end your miserable life and gain the rewards of the afterlife too. This is like killing two birds with one stone.

 

Muslims are led to believe that America and especially the Jews who “run the world by proxy” (as the Malaysian PM, Dr. Mahathir said) are responsible for all their miseries. They see themselves as victims. Once they identify their alleged victimizers, they are ready to take their revenge – a revenge that is glorified by all the Muslims and is encouraged by God himself. Here is where the Quran provides them with “guidance” and confirmation. You take your revenge, you end our useless, worthless life, you will be hailed as a hero and you will go to paradise where a bevy of voluptuous celestial "virgin whores" in their see through lingerie is waiting for you to fulfill all your frustrated fantasies. Suddenly you can kiss goodbye all your failures and succeed. What a bargain! How can anyone refuse that?

 

But that is not all. You also need the support and encouragement of others. You may get cold feet. You need to be egged on, cheered and reconfirmed. This is readily available through mosques that incite hate and encourage martyrdom and the underground network of terrorism that rouse young Muslims to join their campaign of terror and become the next martyr. The whole Islamic ethos encourages you to become a martyr. You have the support of everyone. Jihad and martyrdom are the essence of Islam. Who is that Muslim who can oppose it?

 

Therefore to say that just by reading the Quran, loving Muslims become terrorists is not entirely true. A whole gamut of conditions must be present for that to happen.

 

Take the example of becoming infected by viruses. Two persons are exposed to the same virus; one become infected and the other doesn't. Can we conclude that virus has nothing to do with the disease? Immunities vary from person to person. The person with less immunity will get infected while the one with stronger immunity will not. But ultimately it is the virus that makes people sick.

 

Likewise, not all those who read the Quran become terrorists. But when all the conditions are met, Muslims become vulnerable. It is like being soaked in gasoline. All it takes is a spark to be ignited and that is what the Quran provides. Others read the Quran and may not be affected. They are like wet wood. They hardly get ignited and worked out by the hate laden verses of the Quran. But if all the conditions are met, every Muslim becomes vulnerable and can become a terrorist.

 

The problem is that all those conditions that prepare a Muslim to become a terrorist are also caused by the Quran. These conditions are not cultural, ethnic, political or economical. They are religious. The hatred of the Jews and the non-Muslims has its roots in the Quran. Most of the crises that Muslim youth face, like lack of opportunity and loss of hope are also the result of the failure of Islam in solving the real problems of Muslims and particularly the youth.

 

One more factor that I did not mention but is very important is the lack of self-esteem and the prevalent feeling of worthlessness among Muslims, and Islam’s pedagogic fiasco in rearing confident, positive and successful humans. Terrorists are losers who seek their glory in martyrdom. That too is the direct consequence of the failure of Islamic paradigm.

 

Therefore, Islam does not only provide the ultimate spark, it also prepares Muslims throughout their lives to become failures, haters and terrorists. It gives them distorted values and trains them slowly to accept stupidity as a praiseworthy sacrifice and murder as a divine act.

 

Islam is entirely responsible for Islamic terrorism. If we fail to see that, we have failed in our diagnosis.

 

[Kulapavana 0]

The Daily News

Perth, Western Australia

31 October, 1946

 

"Girl in Red" in Bomb Horror

 

Jerusalem, Thursday

 

Forty minutes after a telephoned warning, the Jerusalem Railway Station was

blown up yesterday. Agency reports say that at least twelve people are

missing, and the station will not be able to be used for a week.

A young Jewess described as the "Girl in Red" slipped past Arab police, held

up the railway clerk at pistol point, and planted three suitcases,

containing bombs, in the waiting room.

Troops and police were rushed to the station to try and locate the bombs and

a constable managed to remove one. A second exploded in his hands while he

was trying to get it out of the building, wrecking the loading room and the

waiting room. The police constable was killed instantly.

In the meanwhile, the "Girl in Red" leapt into a taxi, which tore off

through a hail of fire from police. In an attempt to break through the

police cordon drawn around the city, the taxi roared through twisting lanes

in the Jewish slum quarters.

It is thought that the taxi must have stopped briefly to let the girl out,

because when it was finally cornered near the walls of the Old City, she was

not in it. The only occupants were three Jews, two of whom were wounded.

There was a quantity of explosives and hand-grenades under the flooring of

the taxi.

Police took in charge the bullet riddled, bloodstained taxi, scoured the

adjacent Montefiore quarter, and arrested another Jew who was found wounded

in a nearby house. They also held ten other suspects including a girl

dressed in red, who is being questioned in an attempt to establish the

identity of the girl who planted the bombs.

Although earlier agency reports mentioned at least 12 missing, the only

fatality so far mentioned in the official version is the police officer. He

was a demolition expert. Reuters in Jerusalem says that police and troops

last night were still searching the debris at the station for further

casualties.

After the explosion, an Irgun Zvai Leumi (terrorist) spokesman, broadcasting

over the secret radio "Voice of Fighting Zion", said: "The Jews are at war.

Only arms will decide Palestine's future, not an election."

 

Final death toll is 12, with 11 injured. The Female Jewish terrorist

has been identified as Sima Fleishhaker-Hoizman

 

Source: The Daily News, Perth, Western Australia

31 October 1946

 

[Guest guest]

One way of measuring any terrorist attack is to look at whether the killers accomplished everything they set out to. On September 11, 2001, al-Qa'eda set out to hijack four planes and succeeded in seizing every one. Had the killers attempted to take another 30 jets between 7.30 and nine that morning, who can doubt that they'd have maintained their pristine 100 per cent success rate? Throughout the IRA's long war against us, two generations of British politicians pointed out that there would always be the odd "crack in the system" through which the determined terrorist would slip. But on 9/11 the failure of the system was total.

 

Yesterday, al-Qa'eda hit three Tube trains and one bus. Had they broadened their attentions from the central zone, had they attempted to blow up 30 trains from Uxbridge to Upminster, who can doubt that they too would have been successful? In other words, the scale of the carnage was constrained only by the murderers' ambition and their manpower.

 

The difference is that 9/11 hit out of the blue - literally and politically; 7/7 came after four years of Her Majesty's Government prioritising terrorism and "security" above all else - and the failure rate was still 100 per cent. After the Madrid bombing, I was struck by the spate of comic security breaches in London: two Greenpeace guys shin up St Stephen's Tower, a Mirror reporter blags his way into a servants' gig at Buckingham Palace a week before Bush comes to stay; an Osama lookalike gatecrashes Prince William's party.

 

As I wrote in The Daily Telegraph last March, "History repeats itself: farce, farce, farce, but sooner or later tragedy is bound to kick in. The inability of the state to secure even the three highest-profile targets in the realm - the Queen, her heir, her . - should remind us that a defensive war against terrorism will ensure terrorism."

 

To three high-profile farces, we now have that high-profile tragedy, of impressive timing. It's not a question of trying and prodding and testing and finding the weak link in the chain, the one day - on Monday or Wednesday, in January or November, when an immigration official or a luggage checker is a bit absent-minded and distracted and you slip quietly through. Instead, the jihad, via one of its wholly owned but independently operated subsidiaries, scheduled an atrocity for the start of the G8 summit and managed to pull it off - at a time when ports and airports and internal security were all supposed to be on heightened alert. That's quite a feat.

 

Of course, many resources had been redeployed to Scotland to cope with Bob Geldof's pathetic call for a million anti-globalist ninnies to descend on the G8 summit. In theory, the anti-glob mob should be furious with al-Qa'eda and its political tin ear for ensuring that their own pitiful narcissist protests - the pâpier-maché Bush and Blair puppets, the ethnic drumming, etc - will be crowded off the news bulletins.

 

But I wonder. It seems just as plausible that there will be as many supple self-deluding figures anxious to argue that it's Blair's Iraq war and the undue attention it invites from excitable types that's preventing us from ending poverty in Africa by the end of next week and all the other touchy-feely stuff. The siren songs of Bono and Geldof will be working hard in favour of the quiet-life option. There is an important rhetorical battle to be won in the days ahead. The choice for Britons now is whether they wish to be Australians post-Bali or Spaniards post-Madrid.

 

That shouldn't be a tough call. But it's easy to stand before a news camera and sonorously declare that "the British people will never surrender to terrorism". What would you call giving IRA frontmen offices at Westminster? It's the target that decides whether terror wins - and in the end, for all the bombings, the British people and their political leaders decided they preferred to regard the IRA as a peripheral nuisance which a few concessions could push to the fringe of their concerns.

 

They thought the same in the 1930s - back when Czechoslovakia was "a faraway country of which we know little". Today, the faraway country of which the British know little is Britain itself. Traditional terrorists - the IRA, ETA - operate close to home. Islamism projects itself long-range to any point of the planet with an ease most G8 militaries can't manage. Small cells operate in the nooks and crannies of a free society while the political class seems all but unaware of their existence.

 

Did we learn enough, for example, from the case of Omar Sheikh? He's the fellow convicted of the kidnapping and beheading in Karachi of the American journalist Daniel Pearl. He's usually described as "Pakistani" but he is, in fact, a citizen of the United Kingdom - born in Whipps Cross Hospital, educated at Nightingale Primary School in Wanstead, the Forest School in Snaresbrook and the London School of Economics. He travels on a British passport. Unlike yours truly, a humble Canadian subject of the Crown, Mr Sheikh gets to go through the express lane at Heathrow.

 

Or take Abdel Karim al-Tuhami al-Majati, a senior al-Qa'eda member from Morocco killed by Saudi security forces in al Ras last April. One of Mr Majati's wives is a Belgian citizen resident in Britain. In Pakistan, the jihadists speak openly of London as the terrorist bridgehead to Europe. Given the British jihadists who've been discovered in the thick of it in Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Palestine, Chechnya and Bosnia, only a fool would believe they had no plans for anything closer to home - or, rather, "home".

 

Most of us can only speculate at the degree of Islamist penetration in the United Kingdom because we simply don't know, and multicultural pieties require that we keep ourselves in the dark. Massoud Shadjareh, chairman of Britain's Islamic Human Rights Commission, is already "advising Muslims not to travel or go out unless necessary, and is particularly concerned that women should not go out alone in this climate". Thanks to "Islamophobia" and other pseudo-crises, the political class will be under pressure to take refuge in pointless gestures (ie, ID cards) that inconvenience the citizenry and serve only as bureaucratic distractions from the real war effort.

 

Since 9/11 most Britons have been sceptical of Washington's view of this conflict. Douglas Hurd and many other Tory grandees have been openly scornful of the Bush doctrine. Lord Hurd would no doubt have preferred a policy of urbane aloofness, such as he promoted vis à vis the Balkans in the early 1990s. He's probably still unaware that Omar Sheikh was a westernised non-observant chess-playing pop-listening beer-drinking English student until he was radicalised by the massacres of Bosnian Muslims.

 

Abdel Karim al-Tuhami al-Majati was another Europeanised Muslim radicalised by Bosnia. The inactivity of Do-Nothin' Doug and his fellow Lions of Lethargy a decade ago had terrible consequences and recruited more jihadists than any of Bush's daisy cutters. The fact that most of us were unaware of the consequences of EU lethargy on Bosnia until that chicken policy came home to roost a decade later should be sobering: it was what Don Rumsfeld, in a remark mocked by many snide media twerps, accurately characterised as an "unknown unknown" - a vital factor so successfully immersed you don't even know you don't know it.

 

This is the beginning of a long existential struggle, for Britain and the West. It's hard not to be moved by the sight of Londoners calmly going about their business as usual in the face of terrorism. But, if the governing class goes about business as usual, that's not a stiff upper lip but a death wish.

 

 

 

[Tarun 6]

Cheney's cover blown long ago

[Guest guest]

What is happening in the world today is very bad!

 

What happened in UK is bad, what is happening in middle east is bad and what had happenend in India for 1000 years is very very very bad...

 

for 600 years Muslims destroyed, vandalised, attacked, cleansed, wiped out Hindus and Buddhist from India. An estimate says that India's population reduced by 80 million in last 1000 years and it still goes on in Kashmir...

 

UK colonized and destroyed, killed, dehumanized, manipulated, wiped out India and its culture for 200 years...

 

a Hindu life and a Buddhist life is in no way less than any Muslim life or a British life.

 

So long every body will not adopt the philosophy of non-violence the world will remain disturbed place. Non-violence has been taught in India since ages from Srikrishna, Buddha, Gandhi, Dalailama and many others..and it is the only way to a lasting peace.

[gHari 0]

Sorry, Guest, you're just too stupid to talk with me.

 

[Guest guest]

SO WHAT DO THEY WANT?

 

By Terrorism Expert Kevin Toolis

 

IF the Islamic fanatics who bombed London ever achieved their aims and took power, Britain would become an Iranian-style Islamic Republic.

 

 

All contact between the sexes would be banned. Discos, bars, public swimming pools, youth clubs - anywhere women and men could meet - would be closed down. Sunbathing, beach holidays and all forms of female sport would be outlawed. Fashion magazines such as Vogue could only be published if all images of female flesh were blacked out.

 

 

It would be a crime for a woman to walk with her hair uncovered in public. Instead, all women, even girls as young as four, would be forced to wear hijab - an all-encompassing headscarf and baggy clothes to disguise her body shape even in the height of summer.

 

 

Bikinis, skimpy clothes, any garment revealing a women's curves would be suppressed.

 

 

The only men a British woman would be allowed to meet would be her immediate male relatives - although men would be allowed to marry up to four wives.

 

 

Education would be rigidly segregated and all forms of mixed entertainment banned.

 

 

The streets of every British city would be patrolled by special religious police who would enforce this Islamic dress code and arrest any suspected "courting couples".

 

 

Anyone suspected of committing adultery would be hanged or stoned to death in public at the new Wembley stadium. Britain would be ruled by a special council of Islamic Guardians who would oversee all laws and determine who could stand for ..

 

 

The only people allowed to become MPs would be those deemed by these Islamic clerics to have the right attitude to the rule of Islam and the British Islamic Republic.

 

 

The Royal family would be killed or driven into exile. An Islamic Britain would declare war on the United States.

 

 

Every aspect of life - from family barbecues, to who sat next to whom in restaurants - would be determined by a strict Islamic code.

 

 

All other religious groups, from Christians to Jews, would be expected to adopt the same sort of rules. The Koran, not a constitution or a legal system, would be regarded as the only source of authority or justice.

 

 

Those who blasphemed or criticised it - such as author Salman Rushdie - would be executed. To normal people, the idea of Britain ever becoming an Islamic Republic seems insane.

 

 

But to the fanatics behind the Tube bombings, taking power in a major Western European state is just part of their holy jihad against the West.

 

 

At the root of the Islamic philosophy of Osama bin Laden and his followers is the belief that America and its allies, such as Britain, are occupying Muslim lands and waging a modern-day Christian crusade against Islam.

 

 

Osama bin Laden wants to turn the historical clock back to the 13th century when the Islamic empire of the Ottomans stretched from the deserts of China to Spain and to the gates of Vienna in Austria. These fanatics believe that the presence of US and British troops in Iraq and Saudi Arabia is just part of the United States' plan to dominate the world and control the world's oil supplies.

 

 

If they won their war of terror, bin Laden would take control of the oil wealth of Saudi Arabia, expel all American troops from Iraq and wipe the Jewish state of Israel off the map. They want Islam, not the United States, to rule the world and they are prepared to use any means - terrorism, hijacking and suicide bombing - to further their aim.

 

 

ALTHOUGH the attacks in London were deadly, they were not a repeat of 9/11. The London attackers did not have the capacity to launch the same level of attack that resulted in the Twin Towers' collapse and a huge death toll.

 

 

The relatively small amount of explosives used also suggests that the Islamic terror cell is small and isolated and without access to the sort of funds and ready supply of bomb-making material that characterised previous al-Qaeda attacks.

 

 

On the surface, these elements suggest that the London attackers are likely to come from within Britain's own Islamic communities rather than be sleeper cells sent from abroad.

 

 

Fighting such terror cells, and suicide bombers, is a huge intelligence task. By the time the terrorists are ready to plant the bombs it is too late.

 

 

In a very brutal way, a suicide bomber is just a means of delivering a bomb and a puppet of the recruiters and organisers who send him.

 

 

The only real way to stop similar terrorist outrages is to find and eliminate the leaders while they are planning their atrocities.

 

 

And the only real way to do that is to recruit a network of spies among the Islamic extremists in Britain and abroad.

 

 

The bombings hint at a failure of MI5 to counter the Islamic terror threat. At the moment, MI5 and the Metropolitan police simply don't have enough Arabic-speaking officers to infiltrate the Islamic terror cells.

 

 

They simply don't have enough people who understand the language. And if you can't understand the language, how can you expect to understand the mindset of the enemy?

 

 

The fuel for this home-grown fanaticism has been America's support for Israel in the Middle East and the invasion of Iraq.

 

 

If the Arab-Israeli conflict was successfully resolved, this would weaken support for the fanatics' cause and help stabilise an inflamed region. But it would not make the threat disappear entirely.

 

 

The men who planted bombs on London's Tube and a bus to kill and maim did so because they see everything about the West as corrupt and evil. Killing the innocent was just part of their greater crusade.

 

 

They think they are fighting for the future of the entire world, for a universal Islamic state that will rule every human life. We must do all in our power to destroy them before they try again to destroy our way of life.

 

[krsna 3]

 

 

Ali Sina

 

May, 25, 2005

 

In an act of total insanity, the Council of Europe, decided to ban criticism of Islam equating it to anti-Semitism.

 

Selcuk Gultasli in zaman.com wrote: “Anti-Islamism has been included in the text as a “dangerous inclination” that has to be fought against upon the insistence of Turkey at the summit that 46 Council members attended. The conclusion draft of the summit included the notion of "Islamophobia". The inclusion of this notion in the European organizations' documents for the first time is described as the success of Turkey.

 

The 3rd Council of Europe summit has for the first time mentioned "Islamophobia" in the 9th paragraph of the Warsaw Declaration that was accepted on Tuesday, May 17. The Council has reached the following decisions regarding the issue: Condemnation of any kind of intolerance and discrimination based on gender, race and religious beliefs in particular, including Islamophobia and anti-Semitism, the fight against these within the framework of the Council of Europe and the use of effective mechanisms and rules to combat these problems.

 

Thus, anti-Islamism as well as anti-Semitism will be dealt with within the framework of legal proceedings. The Council reports will include anti-Islamist movements. The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) will closely monitor these movements. The Commission will record in which country anti-Islamism increases or how it is reflected.”

 

This is the beginning of the fall of Europe. Anti-Islamism is not the same as anti-Semitism. Islam is a belief system, Semites are a race. We can’t equate a race to a doctrine. Racism is sheer evil. Apart from the fact that no race is better or worse than other races, unless one is Michael Jackson, one can’t change his race. Instigating hate against a race is instigating hate against mankind. Doctrines that instigate racial hate must be condemned and those who engage in racial slurs must be brought to justice.

 

Prohibiting criticism of Islam is like prohibiting criticism of Judaism or Christianity. No one in his right mind would suggest criticism of these religions should be banned. The very fact that these religions have reformed and have adapted to modern times is because they were criticized. Only during the inquisition, criticism of Christianity was against the law. Are we trying to introduce Islamic inquisition to appease Muslims? Are we trying to institute the blasphemy law that is practiced in Saudi Arabia , Pakistan and Iran to make Muslims happy? This is insane!

 

Islam advocates the hatred of the Jews in particular but also of Christians who according to the Quran have corrupted their Scripture and call Jesus the son of God. The Quran’s biggest condemnation is reserved for the people of other religions and of no religion. All these people, including Jews and Christians are considered to be najis and fuels of hellfire. This is hate. This is hate-mongering. There is no other way to put it. Why are we not banning the Quran? Why are we not condemning Islam for blatantly advocating hate?

 

The decision of the Council of Europe is oxymoronic. How can we condemn anti-Semitism if we are not allowed to criticize Islam that incites hatred of the Jews and says God transformed them into swine and apes? Is this not insult?

 

There is a fundamental difference between religions and people. One is made of flesh and bones and the other is merely a doctrine. People must be protected, but doctrines don't need to be protected. They have to be scrutinized, questioned and if found dangerous or wrong, rejected. Doctrines that advocate the hatred of people must be criticized and banned, not protected. How can we protect the rights of people to life and to freedom if at the same time we protect doctrines that incite hatred against them? If someone calls Muslims filthy, untouchable, impure, he is inciting hate. He should be stopped. This is clearly a racial insult. But the Quran calls all of us who are not Muslims najis. Najis means filthy, untouchable, impure. Why criticizing this book of hate should be against the law? Is this not double standard? is this not hypocrisy? Is this not dhimmitude? Why Muslims should be allowed to insult everyone else but criticizing their hateful doctrine should be against the law?

 

This decision simply makes no sense. It is a contradiction. You can’t ban anti-Semitism and anti-Islamism at the same time. Islam is anti-Jew and anti-Human. The two don’t go together. They are mutually exclusive.

 

Today May 25, 2005 an Italian judge, Armando Grasso, in city of Bergamo, ordered the best-selling writer and journalist Oriana Fallaci to stand trial in her native Italy on charges she defamed Islam in her book “La Forza della Ragione” (The Force of Reason)

 

In it, Ms Fallaci. argues that Europe is turning into "an Islamic province, an Islamic colony" and that "to believe that a good Islam and a bad Islam exist goes against all reason".

 

Fallaci wrote that terrorists had killed 6,000 people over the past 20 years in the name of the Quran and said the Islamic faith "sows hatred in the place of love and slavery in the place of freedom." Fallaci spoke the truth. These are facts, not her opinion.

 

Adel Smith, president of the Muslim Union of Italy, sued the writer, claiming that Ms Fallaci’s book is offensive to Muslims.

 

So what? The Quran is offensive to all Mankind. No one, including Ms. Fallaci, can go far enough to insult Muslims the way the Quran insults non-Muslims, calling them, kafir (blasphemers), najis, fuels for hellfire, enemies of God, etc. But the Quran does not stop there. It actually incites violence against the non-Muslims. Muhammad asked his followers to instill terror in the hearts of the unbelievers, to wage war against them, to smite their heads from above their necks, to deceive them, to kill them wherever they find them, even to rape their wives. Why such a book should be protected and why criticizing it should be banned?

 

Europe is threading a very dangerous path. Two things can happen in Europe:

 

Islam is left alone to grow unchecked, which means Europe will succumb to Islamism before the end of this century. Or

 

The Europeans sense the danger too late, panic, and give birth to Eurofascism to counter Islamofascism.

 

In either case Europe will be destroyed.

 

Curtailing freedom of speech, specially banning criticism of a doctrine of hate is foolishly dangerous. Europe is playing with fire. The path that Europe has taken today will lead to its fall before the end of this century, but more likely it will auto disintegrate in a civil war in the next two or three decades.

 

Concerned Europeans must:

 

Write to their Prime Ministers, Presidents and MPs and demand for freedom of speech and freedom to criticize doctrines of hate. Islam should not have privileges that Christianity, Judaism or any other religion does not have.

 

Organize campaigns to defend freedom of speech and beat the resolution of the Council of Europe.

 

Support candidates that are conscientious and are not willing to sell their souls and your country to Islamists for vote.

 

Politicians are like prostitutes, one will do anything for your money, and the other will do anything for your vote. Boycott those politicians who pander to Muslims for their votes with your vote.

 

Support parties that have anti Muslim immigration policies and are not afraid to call a spade a spade. At this moment, saving Europe is more important than your political ideology. Bite the bullet and vote for parties that you don’t like but have clearly the interest of saving your country from Islamofascism in mind.

 

[krsna 3]

 

By Ali Sina

 

Islam is a religion with a very political agenda. The ultimate goal of Islam is to rule the world. But what kind of government an Islamic state would have?

 

It certainly won’t be democratic. Islam is not compatible with democracy. Amir Taheri, an Iranian born author/journalist in a debate on Islam and democracy argued that in fact the word democracy does not exist in any of the languages spoken by Muslims. “To understand a civilization,” Taheri said, “it is important to understand its vocabulary. If it was not on their tongues it is likely that it was not on their minds either.”

 

Democracy implies equality. But equality is unacceptable in Islam. Un-believers cannot be equal to believers and women are not equal to men. Even the non-Muslims are not deemed to be equal. The People of the Book (Jews and Christians) are accepted as second class citizens and allowed to live in an Islamic state provided they pay the protection tax; Jizyah. But the pagans, atheists and idolaters are not regarded as fully humans. According to the Quran, the idolaters are to be killed wherever they are found. (9:5)

 

In the April 9, 2002 issue, The Wall Street Journal published the concept of blood money in Saudi Arabia . If a person has been killed or caused to die by another, the latter has to pay blood money or compensation, as follow.

 

100,000 riyals if the victim is a Muslim man

50,000 riyals if a Muslim woman

50,000 riyals if a Christian man

25,000 riyals if a Christian woman

6,666 riyals if a Hindu man

3,333 riyals if a Hindu woman

 

According to this hierarchy, a Muslim man's life is worth 33 times that of a Hindu woman. This hierarchy is based on the Islamic definition of human rights and is rooted in the Quran and Sharia (Islamic law). How can we talk of democracy when the concept of equality in Islam is inexistent?

 

When an Islamic state was established over parts of northern India, the Ulama (religious scholars) raised a great controversy. By now the interpreters of Islamic law had become divided into four schools - Hanafi, Hanbali, Maliki, and Shafii. The Hanafi school alone was in favor of extending the status of dhimmî to the Hindus. The other three schools were insistent that the only choice the Hindus had was between Islam and death.

 

Amir Khusru, the dearest disciple of Nizamuddin Awliya echoed the same opinion when he wrote in his Khazãin-ul-Futûh also known as the Tãrîkh-i-Alãî: “The whole country by means of the sword of our holy warriors has become like a forest denuded of its thorns by fire. The land has been saturated by the waters of the sword, and the vapours of infidelism [Hinduism] have been dispersed. The strong men of Hind have been trodden under foot, and all are ready to pay tribute. Islam is triumphant, idolatry is subdued. Had not the law (of Hanifa) granted exemption from death by the payment of jiziya, the very name of Hind, root and branch, would have been extinguished.” [sita Ram Goel “The Story Of Islamic Imperialism In India ”]

 

Of course killing the idolaters "wherever ye find them" was not always expedient. What would the Muslim rulers in India gain if they killed all the Hindus? Over whom would they rule? So pragmatism often prevailed and the Muslim rulers would exert some degree of tolerance towards their pagan subjects. Furthermore, it is hard to find a Muslim ruler as ruthless as Muhammad himself. Muslim rulers killed whenever profit dictated and since live subjects were more profitable than dead ones, the extermination was not total as was intended by Muhammad. Nonetheless this tolerance was out of political expediency and not a right of the pagan. Muhammad's butchery of his victims on the other hand, was psychopathological. He would massacre entire populations simply because they rejected him and hurt his feelings.

 

The Christians and the Jews, the so called People of the Book, had some conditional rights. They had to pay Jizyah and buy their protection. Nonetheless they lived in a state of religious apartheid and were subject to humiliating treatments. For example, they were considered najis (impure) and were not allowed to go out on rainy days, lest their impurity may rub to a passing Muslim, make him “impure” and annul his prayer. The Jews and Christians were required to dismount from their donkey or horse if they met a Muslim in their way and they were supposed to greet the Muslim humbly and show submissiveness towards him. The Dhimmis were not allowed to build their houses taller than those of their Muslim neighbors and in some cases they were not allowed to build new churches and synagogues and needed permission to repair the existing ones.

 

Taheri said: “To say that Islam is incompatible with democracy should not be seen as a disparagement of Islam. On the contrary, many Muslims would see it as a compliment because they sincerely believe that their idea of rule by God is superior to that of rule by men which is democracy.”

 

One Islamic site explains: “In Western democracy, the people are sovereign; in Islam sovereignty is vested in Allah and the people are His caliphs or representatives. The laws given by Allah through His Prophet ( Shari ‘ah) are to be regarded as constitutional principles that should not be violated.”

 

Taheri quoted several Muslim thinkers who expressed their disdain and disapproval of democracy.

 

Ayatollah Khomeini called democracy "a form of prostitution" because he who gets the most votes wins the power that belongs only to Allah.

 

Sayyed Qutb, the Egyptian who is credited to be the ideological mentor of Safalists, spent a year in the United States in the 1950s and wrote: " America is a nation that has forgotten God and been forsaken by Him; an arrogant nation that wants to rule itself."

 

Yussuf al-Ayyeri, one of the leading theoreticians of today's Islamist movement, published a book ( available on the Internet) in which he warned that the real danger to Islam did not come from American tanks and helicopter gunships in Iraq but from the idea of democracy and rule by the people.

 

Maudoodi, another of the Islamist theoreticians now fashionable, dreamed of a political system in which human beings would act as automatons in accordance with rules set by God.

 

He said that God has arranged man's biological functions in such a way that their operation is beyond human control. For our non-biological functions, notably our politics, God has set rules that we have to discover and apply once and for all so that our societies can be on auto-pilot so to speak.

 

The late Saudi theologian, Sheikh Muhammad bin Ibrahim al-Jubair, a man I respected though seldom agreed with, sincerely believed that the root cause of all of our contemporary ills was the spread of democracy. “Only one ambition is worthy of Islam,” he liked to say, “the ambition to save the world from the curse of democracy: to teach men that they cannot rule themselves on the basis of manmade laws. Mankind has strayed from the path of God, we must return to that path or face certain annihilation.”

 

So what kind of government Islam is proposing?

 

Democracy means the rule of people. This is unacceptable in Islam. The Quran is empathic that “to Allah belong all Dominion and power” (2.165, 35:10, 35:13, 64:1). The words “No judgment but God’s” (la hukm illa li-llah) is based on several Quranic verses (esp. 6.57; 12.40, 67 etc.) This power is vested on His regent known as Khalifat al-Allah.

 

The Khalifa cannot legislate. He can only interpret the Law given in the Quran and the sunnah and apply it. Naturally, since the Quran is not a clear book, this allows for a wide range of interpretations and this explains why there are so many Islamic schools of thoughts and sects. “But the bottom line is” says Taheri, “that no Islamic government can be democratic in the sense of allowing the common people equal shares in legislation.”

 

[krsna 3]

Common people are called awwam, and as the saying goes: al-awwam kal anaam! (People are like animals).

 

It is up to the “experts” of the Law to interpret the Sharia and let the awwam know how they should live their lives. This endows the “expert” ruler, all the power and allows him to act as the deputy of God on Earth. There can be no opposition to the ruler. You can’t oppose God by opposing his representative.

 

In democracies people’s beliefs are irrelevant. They can belong to any religion or no religion and still manage to govern themselves in a secular state. This is not the case in monotheistic societies where God is the lawgiver. Christians and Jews have managed to separate the Church from the State. This evolution in Islam is not possible. The concept of Church (with capital C) as understood in Christianity does not exist in Islam. There is no authority like the Vatican or the Church of England in Islam. The Mullahs and Imams are average Muslims who through their knowledge of the Quran and Sharia gain reputation among the ummah and their own peers. You can't separate the Islamic "Church" from politics, because there is no such thing as the Islamic "Church". Every Mullah can interpret the Sharia in his own way. But he can't redefine the explicit teachings of Islam. Presently Muslims do not have a khalifa. But even if they had, the khalifa would not have been able to deviate from the Quran and separate Islam from politics.

 

Islam’s main goal is to give the dominion of this world to its "rightful" owner, Allah. No authority on Earth can change that. Impeding Islam to achieve this goal is denying its raison d'être and it is tantamount to blasphemy. Islam by definition is imperialistic. It must advance, conquer and reclaim the dominion of all Earth or there is no reason for it to exist.

 

Democracies are pluralistic. People have different faiths and are free to criticize, not only each other’s religions but also their own. Islam does not tolerate that. Anyone who dares to criticize Islam faces severe punishment including execution or assassination. Islam is regarded as The Truth, the Only Truth and the Absolute Truth. Defying this truth is the same as defying God and that cannot be tolerated. Challenging the authority of the representative of God is like challenging God himself.

 

On May 27, 1999 Rafsanjani, one of the ruling Mullahs of Iran said: "If the Islamic nature and fundamental pillar of the state and the velayat-e faqih (Shiite version of khalifa) are undermined, nothing would be left around." The same day, Khatami, the so called “reformist” president of the Islamic Republic said in the city of Qom : "Society's parting with religion and the clergy is the beginning of our fall." Khatami in July 5, 1998 said: “velayat-e faqih is the axis and pillar of the state," he reiterated, "velayat-e faqih is the raison d'être of our state. As such, opposing it... is to oppose the fundamentals and pillar of the state….No state would tolerate assaults on its principles and pillars," he said. [ Iran Zamin News Agency]

 

In a commentary, iran-bulletin.org defines the concept of velayat-e faqis which is not distinct from that of khilafat: “In the theory of velayate faqih none of us can tell the difference between good and bad and, indeed, the whole edifice of the clerical rulership has been constructed to cope with our “ignorance”. The supreme clerical leader is our custodian (qayyem), and we are like sheep that if separated from our shepherd would surely be lost. The velayate faqih embodies every rights and the rest of us are only to carry duties. At its most pithy definition, the system of velayate faqih is the expression of this ignorance and absence of rights on our part in contrast with the all knowing, all powerful, clerical ruler."

 

Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, explained the concept of velaya-e faqih, the position that he himself is occupying, with an uncanny frankness when he said: “the leadership means that point where the insoluble problems of government are solved at his hands. His person lights up the truth for the people and exposes the conspiracies of the enemy.” [ibid]

 

In the Islamic state religion is preeminent and God serves as the only legitimate source of legislation. Temporal rulers merely implement the laws of Islam as dictated by God.

 

The following article titled “Essential Features of the Islamic Political System” explains the concept of khilafat as understood by Muslims.

 

“The political system of Islam is based on three principles: Tawhid (unity of Allah), Risalat (Prophethood) and Khilafat (vicegerency).

 

Tawhid means that only Allah is the Creator, Sustainer and Master of the universe and of all that exists in it organic or inorganic. The sovereignty of this kingdom is vested only in Him. He alone has the right to command or forbid. Worship and obedience are due to Him alone, no one and nothing else shares it in any way. Life, in all its forms, our physical organs and faculties, the apparent control which we have over nearly everything in our lives and the things themselves, none of them has been created or acquired by us in our own right. They have been bestowed on us entirely by Allah. Hence, it is not for us to decide the aim and purpose of our existence or to set the limits of our authority; nor is anyone else entitled to make these decisions for us. This right rests only with Allah, who has created us, endowed us with mental and physical faculties, and provided material things for our use.

 

This principle of the unity of Allah totally negates the concept of the legal and political independence of human beings, individually or collectively. No individual, family, class or race can set themselves above Allah. Allah alone is the Ruler and His commandments are the Law.

 

The medium through which we receive the law of Allah is known as Risalat. We have received two things from this source: the Book in which Allah has set out His law, and the authoritative interpretation and exemplification of the Book by the Prophet, blessings and peace be on him through word and deed, in his capacity as the representative of Allah. The Prophet, blessings and peace be on him, has also, in accordance with the intention of the Divine Book, given us a model for the Islamic way of life by himself implementing the law and providing necessary details where required. The combination of these two elements is called the Shari ‘ah.

 

Now consider Khilafat. According to the Arabic lexicon, it means ‘representation’. Man, according to Islam, is the representative of Allah on earth, His vicegerent. That is to say, by virtue of the powers delegated to him by Allah, he is required to exercise his Allah-given authority in this world within the limits prescribed by Allah.

 

A state that is established in accordance with this political theory will in fact be a human caliphate under the sovereignty of Allah and will do Allah’s will by working within the limits prescribed by Him and in accordance with His instructions and injunctions.” http://www.jamaat.org/islam/IslamPol.html]

[krsna 3]

This definition makes clear that the rule of Islamic system of government is not limited to Muslims but to every “organic or inorganic” thing that exists in this universe. This of course includes the non-Muslims. In an Islamic state everyone must live according to the dictates of Islam.

 

What we learned so far is that khilafat or the velayat-e faqih are not dissimilar to fascism.

 

The Columbia Encyclopedia, defines fascism as: “A totalitarian philosophy of government that glorifies the state and nation and assigns to the state control over every aspect of national life.”

 

Characteristics of Fascist Philosophy:

“Fascism, especially in its early stages, is obliged to be antitheoretical and frankly opportunistic in order to appeal to many diverse groups. Nevertheless, a few key concepts are basic to it. First and most important is the glorification of the state and the total subordination of the individual to it. The state is defined as an organic whole into which individuals must be absorbed for their own and the state’s benefit. This “total state” is absolute in its methods and unlimited by law in its control and direction of its citizens.

 

A second ruling concept of fascism is embodied in the theory of social Darwinism. The doctrine of survival of the fittest and the necessity of struggle for life is applied by fascists to the life of a nation-state. Peaceful, complacent nations are seen as doomed to fall before more dynamic ones, making struggle and aggressive militarism a leading characteristic of the fascist state. Imperialism is the logical outcome of this dogma. Another element of fascism is its elitism. Salvation from rule by the mob and the destruction of the existing social order can be effected only by an authoritarian leader who embodies the highest ideals of the nation. This concept of the leader as hero or superman, borrowed in part from the romanticism of Friedrich Nietzsche, Thomas Carlyle, and Richard Wagner, is closely linked with fascism’s rejection of reason and intelligence and its emphasis on vision, creativeness, and the will.”

 

Let us compare that to Islam. Islam is opportunistic par excellence. It is extremely deceptive and despite being a doctrine of war it portrays itself as the religion of peace. It wants to have a universal appeal. It subjugates women and Muhammad was a misogynist of the worst kind but its apologists present him as the champion of women’s rights. The Quran is an asinine book of nonsense, yet its defenders claim that it is a miracle which contains scientific facts. It opposes knowledge and technology, yet it is presented as the religion that encourages learning. Muslims are fond of reminding others that Muhammad said “seek knowledge even if it is China ” But the fact is that any knowledge that is perceived as contradicting the Quran is regarded satanic and is to be destroyed.

 

The Royal Library of Alexandria in Egypt was once the largest in the world. It was founded at the beginning of the 3rd century BC during the reign of Ptolemy II of Egypt . It stored at its peak 400,000 to 700,000 scrolls. In 640 AD Muslims took the city and upon learning of "a great library containing all the knowledge of the world" the conquering general asked Khalifa Omar for instructions. Omar has been quoted as saying of the Library's holdings, "they will either contradict the Quran, in which case they are heresy, or they will agree with it, so they are superfluous." And to be on the safe side he ordered the library to be destroyed and the books burnt.

 

This is how Muslims try to portray a false image of Islam so it can have a broad appeal.

 

However, the most important feature of Islamic polity is the glorification of Islamic state and the total subordination of the individual to it.

 

Just like in fascism, the Islamic state is defined as an organic whole to which individuals must submit. In Islam “freedom” is in submission to Allah and his messenger. The very word Islam, which Muslims deceptively translate as peace, means submission. What is good for Islam and the Islamic state is good for Muslims and what is bad for Islam and the Islamic state is to be spurned and regarded as bad for Muslims too. Islam and the establishment of Islam’s dominion is the greater good and the ultimate goal that every Muslim must strive for.

 

The Islamic site muslim-canada.org writes: “The highest organization in society is the state. Islam has given to the world the practical form and ideals of statehood. Therefore, the question of how religion should inspire, inform and discipline life, is naturally related to the question of how should it be related to the highest organization of society (i.e. the state).”

 

The other ruling of Islam is the concept of Jihad and the necessity to struggle in order to advance the Islamic dominance. The motto that “Islam is a religion of peace” is a preposterous slogan that is part of the strategy of the Islamic “Game of Deception”. Islam does not mean peace, it does not preach peace, it has never been peaceful and it will never be. Islam has advanced through aggressive militarism and regards Jihad and martyrdom as the most meritorious acts. Islam is militant and imperialistic by its very nature.

 

Fascism is elitist. Islam is also elitist. The Khalifa or the velayat-e faqih is the ultimate authority on Earth. He is the one who can read the scriptures and the only one who can understand them properly. His word is the ultimate undisputable decree. However theoretically, just as in communism, anyone can aspire to become Khalifa. The Khalifa in Sunni sect is elected by the populace while the velayate-e faqih in Shiism is nominated by a body of the ruling Mullahs called: “The Assembly of Experts”. Whether this ruler is elected or nominated, just like in other totalitarian regimes, he occupies his seat for life and responds to no human authority.

 

Another similarity of Islam and fascism is the disdain of reason and intelligence in both ideologies. In Islam, the emphasis is on faith and unquestioning obedience to the mandates of God. Reason is rejected as a fallacy. Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali, (1058 - 1111 CE) is arguably the greatest Islamic scholar ever. In his book "Incoherence of the Philosophers" he bitterly denounced Aristotle, Plato, Socrates and other Greek thinkers as non-believers and labeled those who employed their methods and ideas as corrupters of the Islamic faith. He took aim at Avicenna for being a rationalist who drew intellectually upon the Ancient Greeks. By emphasizing on the incompatibility of faith and reason, and by asserting the futility of making faith subordinate to reason, Ghazali gave validity to unreasoned faith and thus glorified stupidity.

 

Watt says: “The early period of Islamic thought is dominated by the conception of the unchangeability of true religion and the special Arab and Islamic conception of the nature of knowledge. Knowledge that is important for the conduct of life – and this is knowledge in the fullest sense – is obtained in the revealed words of God and in the sayings of prophets and other specially gifted men. From this conception of knowledge it follows that the work of the scholar is to transmit accurately the revealed text and other wise sayings”. [The Formative Period of Islamic Thought, p.63]

 

[krsna 3]

 

It is important to note that when Muslims talk about knowledge, they are talking about the "revealed" knowledge and not the secular scientific knowledge that has given birth to our civilization. The word science in Arabic is Ilm. The people, who possess this Ilm, are called Ulama. But Ulama does not mean scientists. It means religious scholars. Ilm is religious science. Islam does not encourage the learning of science. Islamic languages don't have even a proper word for it. Islam encourages religious learning. This is what Muhammad meant when he said "seek knowledge". Seeking knowledge in Islam, means memorizing the Quran and the hadith.

 

Inspired by the Quran various Muslim groups have employed sectarian violence to achieve political ends. The first group was Kharijiyya. The Kharijiyya insisted on two things. First, that the Islamic community must be based on the Quran. The second point emphasized the ascendancy of the Islamic state over the individual rights. Motivated by many verses of the Quran (32.13, 76:29-31, 3:39, 3:159, 16:93, 2:6-7, 4:88, etc.), they maintained that God’s will, must supersede men’s will and claimed the community is the bearer of the values that constitutes meaningfulness, in other words men’s life has meaning only if he belongs to Muslim community. This is how fascism defines the position of the individual vis-à-vis the state. These ideas were based on the Quran and were eventually adopted by the rest of the Muslims.

 

 

 

The rationalists such as Mutazilis placed reason above revelation. But their school was vehemently opposed by more fervent Islamists and became extinct. They were attacked by a group called Ashariyya to which al-Ghazali and the celebrated poet Rumi belonged. Rumi mocked the rationalists. In a claptrap verse that left its mark on the psyche of the gullible masses he quipped:

 

 

 

The leg of the rationalists is made of wood

 

A wooden leg is draggy and it's no good.

 

 

 

In the 27,500 verses of Mathnavi wherever he got an opportunity, Rumi pounded at rationalists and logical philosophers. He accused them of being confined by the limits of reason and unable to go "beyond" the rational thought into the realm of faith. Rumi himself did go beyond those limits. As the result he fell hook, line and sinker for the Quran and accepted without hesitation every asinine verse in that book including the claim that God transformed the Jews into apes and swine. 2.65, 5.60, 7.166 Rumi and mystics like him became the spiritual lighthouse of the Islamic world.

 

 

 

The Ashariyya derided rationalism, glorified irrationality and preferred faith over reason. They rejected the rationalists whom, in their view, had forsaken religion and had detracted from God and his revelation. Thus rational objectivism was quashed with mockery and violence, the books of rationalists such as Zakaria Razi were destroyed and they themselves had to hide for their safety. The Ashariyya won because they had the backing of the Quran. The rationalists did not.

 

With Ashariyyah’s unconditional embrace of the authority of revelation, and their glorification of irrationality, rationalism was nipped in the bud and most likely the Renascence that was about to be born 1000 years ago, did not. We will never know the extent of the harm that these celebrated religious zealots caused to human civilization.

 

In an article titled: Is Rumi What We Think He Is? Massoume Price quotes Dr. Shaffiee Kadkani who wrote: “unfortunately the emergence of geniuses such as Rumi and other Urafa (religious mystics) who unconditionally supported Ashariyya did not give freedom of thought a chance”. He concludes, “If it wasn’t because of Ashariyya our history might have evolved differently”. [Creation and History, (Afarinesh va Tarikh, p.50)]

 

Price contends: “It is not a coincidence that in Mathnavi, Rumi attacks all thinkers including atheists, naturalists and philosophers etc…. When Ibn Khadon in his ‘Introduction (Mogadameh) mentioned that Africans are black because of geographical and environmental conditions, it was the Ashariyya who ended such scientific observations by declaring people are black because God created them as such. When Physicians tried to find the connection between the brain and hand’s movements, it was Imam Muhammad Ghazali who mocked scientific inquiry and stated “hands move because God wants them to move” [Alchemy of Happiness, Kimiyaya Saadat]. It was Ashariyya who imposed inquisition culture that still exists today and haunts us even in North America.”

 

Both fascism and Islam are suspicious of the intellectuals and promote open hostility to higher education and academia. Often the academics are censored or even arrested.

 

Islam and fascism abhor free expression in the arts. Hitler denounced modern art as the product of "morbid and perverted minds," and reportedly shouted at one painting: "There are no blue horses!" after which he pledged to rid Germany of "aesthetic atrocities." The terms Degenerate Art and Decadent Art were applied by the Nazis to "all art other than the most commonplace naturalism."

 

Islam also prohibits all arts. Music, dance, painting and sculpture are strictly forbidden in Islam. Even poetry is disdained.

 

The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, (Third Edition. 2002) says: “As a rule, fascist governments are dominated by a dictator, who usually possesses a magnetic personality, wears a showy uniform, and rallies his followers by mass parades; appeals to strident nationalism; and promotes suspicion or hatred of both foreigners and “impure” people within his own nation, such as the Jews in Germany.”

 

In Islam, the Khalifa does not wear a showy uniform. On the contrary, in accordance to Muhammad’s sunnah, he exerts himself to make a public “display of modesty”. Modesty is just a show and a hallmark of Islam. The more modest you dress, the more pious you look. But the Friday prayers and the hajj are the Islamic version of mass parades that are designed to impress the believer, give him a sense of pride and belonging and make him firm in his belief that Islam is strong. This parade to Muhammad was so important that in one hadith he is quoted saying:

 

“I thought that I should order the prayer to be commenced and command a person to lead people in prayer, and I should then go along with some persons having a fagot of fuel with them to the people who have not attended the prayer (in congregation) and would burn their houses with fire. [Muslim4,1370; Bukhari1,11,626]

 

This leads us to another similarity between Islam and fascism, namely, vigilantism. Both ideologies rely heavily on vigilantism. Robert O. Paxton in his book "The Anatomy of Fascism" says that it was not Mussolini, who made Fascism a mass movement in Italy; it was the youthful "squads" who did it. These armed vigilantes in the Po Valley, destroying socialist labor unions and throwing out newly elected socialist mayors founded their own unions and ran local government themselves.

 

Much the same happened in Iran during the Islamic take over of 1979. Muslim youth organized themselves in Komites, took control of the government establishments and started running the country. These youth, armed with knives attacked anyone who did not observe Islamic dress code, stabbed them or throw acid at women not wearing hijab.

 

Vigilantism in Islam is an institution ordained by Muhammad himself. Many Islamic countries have Vice Squads to enforce religious laws on their citizens, often with physical violence.

 

One more similarity between Islam and fascism is in their control of publications and the Mass Media. In Islamic counties, like in fascistic states books, newspapers, radios and televisions are controlled by the state or they must be sympathetic to the Islamic government. Anti governmental media are banned and those who speak against the state are punished, often jailed or executed, charged as traitors, enemies of the state and the corruptors of the minds.

 

Both Islam and fascism promote suspicion and hatred of non-members. People are rallied into a unifying frenzy over the need to eliminate their perceived common enemies. In Islam religious minorities are the scapegoats and their members are attacked by hysteric mob. They are mauled and killed.

 

Muhammad said that the unbelievers are impure (najis) 9:28 and instilled in them the hatred of the Jews, the Christians and the kafirs.

 

 

 

[krsna 3]

In one of my debates with a leader of the Islamic sect of Submitters, I quoted a few verses from the Quran switching the places of “Muslims” and “non-Muslims”. This is what we got:

 

We will cast terror into the hearts of Muslims. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them. 8:12,

Let not the non-Muslims take for friends or helpers the Muslims. 3:28,

Rouse the non-Muslims to the fight against Muslims. 8:65,

Then fight and slay the Muslims wherever ye find them, 9:5,

Fight the Muslims, and God will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame. 9:14,

O ye the non-Muslims take not for protectors your fathers and your brothers if they love Islam.9:23,

O ye the non-Muslims! Truly the Muslims are unclean. 9:28,

O ye non-Muslims! fight the Muslims who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you. 9:123,

Therefore, when ye meet the Muslims, smite at their necks; At length. 47:4,

 

The gentleman with whom I was debating was infuriated. He called me “theo-fascist” and wrote: 'His [Ali Sina’s] subhuman remark was the last, but a venomous drop that filled his cup of hatred and bigotry. He is not a person to reason with, since his mind is filled with toxic hate and his stomach is thirsty for fresh blood….” All this vituperation because I quoted the verses of the Quran switching the places of "Muslims" and "non-Muslims"! Muslims see nothing wrong in the Quran but they do not like reciprocation. Clearly Islam is not in conformity with the Golden Rule.

 

One of the highest Sunni Muslim authorities, Sheikh Fawzi Zafzaf, president of the Interfaith Dialogue Committee of Al-Azhar University in Cairo, said his committee sent the request to the Pope on February 2005, demanding an “official apology on Christian crusades against the Muslim world”, the Morocco Times reported.

 

The demand arose from Pope John Paul II's apologies to the Jewish people and his visits to Syria and Egypt a few years ago, Zafzaf said, “Al-Azhar is only asking for a similar treatment”.

 

Muslims can’t see the beam in their own eyes but can see the speck in the eyes of others. The crusades happened 900 years ago (1095 A.D). What about the Muslims’ crimes happening here and now? Has this Sunni high cleric apologized for the 9/11, for the massacre of Madrid , for the horrendous killing of children in Beslan or for any of the crimes perpetrated by his jihadi brothers? What about the invasion of Europe and the occupation of Spain ? Where is the Muslim apology?

 

The West has nothing to apologize to Muslims. Thomas F. Madden, associate professor and chair of the Department of History at Saint Louis University and the author of "A Concise History of the Crusades says, the Crusades "were in every way a defensive war."

 

"They were the West's belated response to the Muslim conquest of fully two-thirds of the Christian world," he wrote in a National Review column. "While the Arabs were busy in the seventh through the tenth centuries winning an opulent and sophisticated empire, Europe was defending itself against outside invaders and then digging out from the mess they left behind. Only in the eleventh century were Europeans able to take much notice of the East."

 

According to Madden, the event that led to the crusades was the Turkish conquest of most of Christian Asia Minor, the modern Turkey .

 

"The Christian emperor in Constantinople faced with the loss of half of his empire, appealed for help to the rude but energetic Europeans. He got it. More than he wanted, in fact," wrote Madden.

 

WorldNetDaily.com reported:

 

“Over the past several years, pronouncements from Al-Azhar have sparked controversy.

 

In 2003, Al-Azhar's grand sheikh, Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, stated suicide bombers are considered "martyrs" under Islamic law.

 

In December 2002, the Islamic Ruling Committee in Al-Azhar declared the acquisition of nuclear weapons to be a religious obligation for Islamic states.

 

A member of panel, Sheikh Ala A-Shanawi, said, "The Islamic nation has to recognize the enemy, and to prepare itself accordingly."

 

Answering a question he received, A-Shanawi wrote, "Allah's messenger [Muhammad] would have prepared himself with all the resources possible in order to deal with the enemy. Therefore, if the Islamic nation is not equipped with the desired weaponry needed, it will be forced to suffer the consequences, and will be blamed for negligence."

 

The sheikh continued, "All Islamic nations are required to seize nuclear weaponry, giving the nation the utmost respect. We see how far behind our nation is as a result of not being prepared as well as it should be, while the enemy has equipped itself with the best weaponry there is, which it will use to harm and destroy Muslims."

 

Given the history and the attitude of Muslims, demanding Pope to apologize officially for the crusades is preposterous. Even though Muslims do not recognize the Golden Rule and call it a cult, they must be forced to adhere to it. The crusaders exceeded their mandates and brutalities were committed. But this was in response to what the Muslims had done and their savagery. Why not mention the barbarity of Muslims in Iran, Byzantium, Egypt or India? In India alone over 80 million people were massacred by the Muslim marauding army. This is more than those killed during the WWI and WWII combined. Everywhere Muslims went, they committed horrendous acts of barbarity. They looted and raped and slaughtered innocent people. The Arabs were the first victims of Islam. All victims of Islam, once converted, become victimizers, lose their humanity and do the most atrocious things to others.

 

Instead of apologizing for the crusades, we must thank the crusaders for weakening Islam and saving Europe and the world. Had Islam been successful conquering Europe, the enlightenment would not have occurred and human civilization would not have advanced as it did.

 

In fact Enlightenment was about to happen with Avicenna, Zakaria Razi, Khyyam and many other luminaries in Persia a thousand years ago. It was nipped in the bud by zealot Muslims such as Al Ghazali and Rumi who argued reason must submit to revelation. Five hundred years later, the works of Avicenna kicked off the Renaissance in Europe. The science is behind five hundred years thanks to Islam. Imagine where we would be today if the Renaissance was allowed to happen a thousand years ago. Had Islam taken over the Europe, we would be still living in Dark Ages.

 

With the exception of Islam, Satanism and fascism all the religions, and social philosophies uphold the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule is the inner compass with which sane people differentiate right from wrong. Its application is very simple. I don’t like to be killed, so I must not kill. I do not like to be robbed, so I must not rob. I don’t like to be lied to, so I must not lie. I don’t like my wife or daughter be raped, so I must not rape someone else’s wife or daughter, etc. The Golden Rule is an unerring compass. In fact it is so unerring that religions become superfluous. People without religion can follow this Rule and find their way unerringly. Jesus said, "let the one who has not committed any sin cast the first stone". This is all we need to be good people.

 

Because Islam does not follow the Golden Rule, it attracts violent people. One example is Amir Tîmûr-i-lang, also known as Tamerlane, (1336-1405). He was a ruthless man who became emperor through banditry. In an autobiographical Memoir, “The History of My Expedition against Hindustan ”, he wrote:

 

“My principal object in coming to Hindustan ( India ) and in undergoing all this toil and hardship has been to accomplish two things. The first was to war with the infidels, the enemies of Islam; and by this religious warfare to acquire some claim to reward in the life to come. The other was a worldly object; that the army of Islam might gain something by plundering the wealth and valuables of the infidels: plunder in war is as lawful as their mothers’ milk to Muslims who war for their faith, and the consuming of that which is lawful is a means of grace.”

 

The entire history of Islam is based on violence and terror. Those Muslims, who follow the Quran, believe that they are entitled to the wealth and even the women of non-Muslims. They are bereft of conscience because Islam is divorced from the Golden Rule.

 

Counting Islam among other religions is a gross mistake. Islam is akin to Satanism and fascism and not to any religion. It is intellectually dishonest to grant Islam the status of religion. All religions, invariably, are based on the Golden Rule. Islam is not. And there are Muslims who will tell you just that.

 

[Guest guest]

You are so sick that even your email stink.

 

Think if there is one country where you are respected other than opressive deserts of your hole.

[Guest guest]

I am a Vaishnava and I don't care if I am respected anywhere. I don't try to please people but only my God. Second, try to be civil. All said and done, we are all vaishnavas irrespective of our political beliefs, so let's show some respect. Thanks.

[krsna 3]

New York Daily News - http://www.nydailynews.com

 

BY ADAM NICHOLS

DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Sunday, July 10th, 2005

 

LONDON - The man believed to have masterminded last year's Madrid train bombings is emerging as the prime suspect in the devastating terror attacks on London's transit system.

Investigators are hunting Mustafa Setmarian Nasar - also known as Abu Musab al-Suri - a Syrian suspected of being Al Qaeda's operations chief in Europe, according to unidentified investigators cited in British newspapers The Sunday Times, The Sunday Telegraph and the Mail on Sunday.

 

Nasar, 47, allegedly played a key role in setting up an Al Qaeda structure in Spain and was indicted there in connection with the Sept. 11 attacks. Last year, the U.S. offered $5 million for information leading to his arrest.

 

New evidence shows the bombs that blew apart three London Underground trains exploded within seconds of one another at 8:50 a.m. Thursday. It was previously thought the train blasts at the Aldgate St., King's Cross and Edgware Road stations were spread over 26 minutes.

 

"It was bang, bang, bang, very close," said London Underground chief Tim O'Toole.

 

The blasts were so intense that none of the 49 people confirmed dead has been identified yet.

 

Bodies from two of the trains are still trapped in the wreckage in tunnels more than 100 feet deep. As many as 50 additional possible victims were unaccounted for, police said yesterday. Frantic relatives were checking hospitals and posting flyers with photos of loved ones missing since Thursday's attacks.

 

"We don't know how many people are left in the carriages," said Deputy Chief Constable Andy Trotter of the British Transport Police. "It is extremely hot, dangerous and dusty down there."

 

Spanish security sources are said to have warned four months ago that Nasar had zeroed in on Britain as a likely target, The Sunday Times reported.

 

It cited Spanish investigators as saying Nasar - now believed to be in Iraq - had set up a sleeper cell in Britain. But Spanish authorities believed he was planning an attack to coincide with the British general election in May, rather than the G-8 summit last week, according to the paper.

 

It also said that, according to dossiers prepared by the British government, Al Qaeda has been stepping up efforts to recruit middle-class Muslims in British universities and colleges to carry out attacks.

 

A group calling itself the Secret Organization of Al Qaeda in Europe claimed responsibility shortly after the blasts. Little is known about the group, but the name was attached to an Internet statement that claimed responsibility for the Madrid train bombings that killed 191 people in March 2004.

 

A second group said yesterday it was behind the London bombings. The claim was made by the Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades, a group that has no history of violent attacks but has claimed responsibility for events like the New York City blackout of 2003 - which turned out to have no connection to terror.

 

Fears that terrorists could strike again were still very much on officials' minds. In Birmingham, central England, police evacuated 20,000 people from the city's central entertainment district last night after intelligence indicating a "substantial threat," said Stuart Hyde, assistant chief constable of West Midlands Police.

 

Police carried out a controlled explosion to disarm a suspicious object found on a Birmingham bus. It was determined not to be an explosive device.

 

The rapid-fire explosions in London suggest timers were used to detonate the bombs, a technique that also indicates a level of sophistication that goes beyond a makeshift cell of terrorists. Police also said the 10-pound bombs were made of "high explosives," likely plastic explosives, another indication of a sophisticated terror cell at work.

 

A fourth bomb, which destroyed a double-decker bus and killed at least 13 people, was detonated an hour later. Officials did not speculate on why the last blast was delayed.

 

Investigators are increasingly convinced that only one bomber - the terrorist who blew up the bus - died in the attacks, The Times of London reported yesterday.

 

The bombs packed such a wallop that officials have been unable to identify any of the dead and are relying on fingerprints, dental records and DNA.

 

Experts already inured by the destruction wrought by last year's tsunami in South Asia were brought in to help recover victims.

 

"A large number, if not all \[of members of the body recovery teams\], had been in Sri Lanka or Thailand," said Detective Superintendent Jim Dickie. "They are extremely experienced."

[Guest guest]

My post was in response to someone who posted

 

 

" The countries that you mentioned were raped by ............. ............................................Probably, the people in India lack spiritual values (which explains why they're in this state)and the Muslims want to convert them for their own good? Who knows, maybe, Islam is the solution for India's spiritual darkness. "

 

It was not meant for Vaishnavites and I myself a humble devotee...

 

It is difficlut to resist when somebody spews irrational comments without any logic.When I said get some respect it was for Muslim who obviously made the above post.

 

 

[krsna 3]

Experts see leaderless al-Qaida cells around globe eager to continue to 'make us bleed'

By CHARLES J. HANLEY

 

New York and Washington. Bali, Riyadh, Istanbul, Madrid. And now London.

 

When will it end? Where will it all lead?

 

The experts aren't encouraged. One prominent terrorism researcher sees the prospect of "endless" war. Adds the man who tracked Osama bin Laden for the CIA, "I don't think it's even started yet."

 

An Associated Press survey of longtime students of international terrorism finds them ever more convinced, in the aftermath of London's bloody Thursday, that the world has entered a long siege in a new kind of war. They think that al-Qaida is mutating into a global insurgency, a possible prototype for other 21st-century movements, technologically astute, almost leaderless. And the way out is far from clear.

 

In fact, says Michael Scheuer, the ex-CIA analyst, rather than move toward solutions, the United States took a big step backward by invading Iraq.

 

Now, he said, "we're at the point where jihad is self-sustaining," where Islamic "holy warriors" in Iraq fight America with or without allegiance to al-Qaida's bin Laden.

 

The cold statistics of a RAND Corp. database show the impact of the explosion of violence in Iraq: The 5,362 deaths from terrorism worldwide between March 2004 and March 2005 were almost double the total for the same 12-month period before the 2003 U.S. invasion.

 

Thursday's attacks on London's transit system mirrored last year's bombings of Madrid commuter trains, and both point to an al-Qaida evolving into a movement whose isolated leaders offer video or Internet inspiration — but little more — to local "jihadists" who carry out the strikes.

 

The movement's evolution "has given rise to a 'virtual network' that is extremely adaptable," said Jonathan Stevenson of the International Institute for Strategic Studies' Washington office.

 

The movement adapted, for example, by switching from targeting aviation, where security was reinforced after the Sept. 11 attacks, to the "softer" targets of mass transit.

 

Such compartmentalized groupings, in touch electronically but with little central control, "are going to be a prototype for understanding where terrorist movements are going in the 21st century," said the University of North Carolina's Cynthia Combs, co-author of a terrorism encyclopedia.

 

Bruce Hoffman, the veteran RAND Corp. specialist who fears an "endless war," dismisses talk of al-Qaida's "back" having been broken by the capture of some leaders.

 

"From the terrorists' point of view, it seems they have calculated they need to do just one significant terrorist attack a year in another capital, and it regenerates the same fear and anxieties," said Hoffman, who was an adviser to the U.S. occupation in Iraq.

 

He and most of the other half-dozen experts said the world's richer powers must address "underlying causes" — lessen the appeal of radicalism by improving economies, political rights and education in Arab and Muslim countries. Stephen Sloan, another veteran scholar in the field, said the American, British and other target publics must give their intelligence and police agencies time to close ranks globally and crush the challenge.

 

"The public has to have the resolve to face the reality there will be other incidents," said Sloan, of the University of Central Florida.

 

Scheuer, who headed the CIA's bin Laden unit for nine years, sees a different way out — through U.S. foreign policy. He said he resigned last November to expose the U.S. leadership's "willful blindness" to what needs to be done: withdraw the U.S. military from the Mideast, end "unqualified support" for Israel, sever close ties to Arab oil-state "tyrannies."

 

He acknowledged such actions aren't likely soon but said his longtime subject bin Laden will "make us bleed enough to get our attention." Ultimately, he said, "his goal is to destroy the Arab monarchies."

 

For James Kirkhope, the outlook is "depressing."

 

His Washington consultancy, Terrorism Research Center, sometimes "red-teams" for U.S. authorities, playing a role in exercises, thinking like terrorist leaders. That thinking increasingly seems focused on a struggle for Islamic supremacy lasting hundreds of years, he said.

 

And for the moment they just "want to be kept on our radar screen," Kirkhope said. For all the terror and carnage, he said, last week's London attacks carried a simple message: "We're still around."

 

[krsna 3]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4670457.stm

[Guest guest]

proven long ago!

 

rX

[Guest guest]

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/071105Watson/071105watson.html

[Kulapavana 0]

Source: Terrorize.dk http://www.terrorize.dk/misc/london/london.terror.games.wmv>

Published: July 11, 2005 Author: Terrorize.dk

Video confirms terror exercise at same place & time as real London bombing: Video <http://www.terrorize.dk/misc/london/london.terror.games.wmv>

 

<http://www.terrorize.dk/misc/london/london.terror.games.wmv>

What are the odds?

 

On 9-11, the US intel/NORAD are running a "hijacking" exercise, and on 7-7, the British are running a "bombing" exercise.

 

If it works, don't fix it!

 

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

Whats Tony Blair going to do? Deply a Nuke on London?

 

He can't go to War with His [His!] own country. I think only person he can blame is Osama bin laden. But where the hell is he? Only replying cause I am in Uk. I am not part of this thread.

[krsna 3]

 

By Ian Herbert, Arifa Akbar and Nigel Morris

 

Published: 12 July 2005

 

Abdul Munim sat amid the charred walls and smoky stench of his mosque yesterday and reflected on levels of religious and racial intolerance that are even worse than when he made Britain his home, 40 years ago.

 

"We've had some hard times and thought they were all in the past," he said. "But now, because of what is happening in the world, it is far less safe. We say to anyone who doubts us, 'The London bombings were wrong'."

 

The Shajala mosque, in Birkenhead, Wirral, was attacked by two white men who threw petrol through the letterbox and ignited it. The assistant imam, Boshir Ullah, was trapped in his upstairs bedroom, as fire raged on the landing outside. Fire crews pulled him to safety from an upstairs window and extinguished the blaze.

 

Mr Munim's sense of despair is shared by senior members of Muslim communities across Britain which have suffered an increasing number of attacks since the bombings in London last Thursday. The attacks prompted the country's most senior Muslim leader to write to imams across Britain warning them to guard against a wave of Islamophobia. Iqbal Sacranie, secretary general of the Muslim Council of Great Britain, said racists had firebombed mosques and attacked other Islamic institutions across Britain. Arson and criminal damage have been reported in Tower Hamlets and Merton, both in London, Telford, Leeds, Bristol and Bradford.

 

Last night, Brian Paddick, the Deputy Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, said: "We will not tolerate a small minority of people who are using these tragic events to stir up hatred. We need people from every community to report incidents to the police of any faith-hate crime."

 

In Birkenhead, Mr Munim said the town's predominantly Bangladeshi Muslim community deserved better. "We are hardworking British citizens and everyone knows us," he said. "My son, Nazmul, went to Leeds University, has a masters degree in computer science and is applying those skills. Yet things are getting worse for us. When we came to Merseyside 40 years ago people were more friendly."

 

The grilles on the windows outside the mosque indicated that it had been the target of violence before. They were installed after the 11 September attacks, when firebombs were pushed through the letterbox.

 

The Shajala mosque started to feel the backlash from the London bombings even as religious leaders were making an ecumenical plea for religious tolerance the day after the bombings. Worshippers approaching the mosque from their homes on a estate encountered individuals shouting "Paki, Paki". Then, at 12.35am on Saturday, Mr Ullah heard what seemed to be someone kicking the front door, though judging from the damage, a pickaxe may have been used. He opened his door and saw the flames.

 

"I was terrified," he said. "There was nowhere to escape and the fire was approaching." Police are hunting for two men, who may have bought the petrol used at a nearby service station.

 

In east London, the community of Bangladeshi and Pakistani Muslims fears for its safety after vandals damaged the Mazahirul Uloom mosque and school on Mile End Road. The attackers, who struck early on Saturday, used crowbars and a hammer to shatter 19 windows.

 

Faruk Ahmed, the mosque's general secretary, said: "We did not expect this to happen in our mosque, at the heart of a peace-loving Muslim community.This is a place of worship and all humans should respect that, whether it is a church, a synagogue, a temple or a mosque."

 

In Nottingham, a 48-year-old man from Pakistan died on Sunday after what police are treating as a racially aggravated attack. Six people were arrested in connection with the attack.

 

The British National Party was condemned last night for a by-election leaflet, exploiting an aerial photograph of the No 30 bus, after the explosion in Tavistock Square which killed 13 people. "Maybe now it's time to start listening to the BNP" is the headline on the leaflet, intended for the by-election in Barking, east London, on Thursday.

 

Five days of reprisals

 

THURSDAY 7 JULY

 

Hayes, west London: Asian woman reports attempted arson attack.

 

Merton, south London: Five white men arrested after throwing bottles at Sikh temple windows.

 

Southall, west London: Asian family attacked at their home.

 

FRIDAY 8 JULY

 

Bristol: Bottles thrown at the Jamia mosque.

 

Leeds: Arson attack on the Jamiat Tablighul Islam Mosque in Armley. Lighted cloth put through the window.

 

SATURDAY 9 JULY

 

Mile End, London: 19 windows broken at Mazahirul Uloom mosque.

 

Tan Bank, Wellington, Shropshire: Firebomb attack on a mosque. West Mercia police step up patrols around places of worship.

 

SUNDAY 10 JULY

 

Birkenhead: Shajala Mosque is set ablaze with petrol bombs, trapping a cleric inside.

 

MONDAY 11 JULY

 

Bradford: Pakistani Consulate in Laisterdyke area of the city attacked by arsonists.

[Kulapavana 0]

yes, some of the people on this thread should ask themselves if the hatred they have for moslems is compatable with Krishna Consciousness.