PRESIDENT BUSH: Please Tell The Truth About ISLAM -

[krsna 3]

 

 

J. Grant Swank, Jr.

 

Why does US President George W. Bush continue to refer to Islam by kind descriptions? In his State of the Union address, the Chief Executive called Islam a “noble faith.”

 

Of course it is not. It is a killing cult. Its chief purpose is to exterminate all infidels from the planet leaving only Muslims for Islam world rule.

 

The supposed kind passages in the Koran were penned by Mohammed in the first half of his life. The killing and maiming passages in the Koran were penned by Mohammed in the second half when he was raping, murdering, robbing and plundering in the name of Allah.

 

Muslims like to lift out only the kind passages. They do not admit to the macabre passages.

 

As daily news reports, the killings passages are what is threatening the civil world. The silence from Muslims in the face of Muslim murderers is because they are letting the killers do the job for them. Do you ever wonder why there is such an awesome terrible silence from Muslim national leaders and mosque clerics? That’s the reason.

 

Back to Mr. Bush: There are various possibilities why he referred to Islam as a “noble faith.”

 

(1) He is naïve as to the truth of Islam. That could be. He placed the Koran in the White House library this winter at a banquet there for Muslim leaders. He did so in a celebration mode. He placed poison in the White House by doing that. Maybe he did not read the book to know its demonic substance.

 

(2) He may know everything about the truth of Islam. However, he does not want blood in American streets. Therefore, he plays word games that in the long run are legitimate if they prevent the overthrow of our republic. Surely with his surveillance system in place, knowing that Muslim areas are particularly covered, Mr. Bush is not doing same because of his ignorance of Islam.

 

(3) He is balancing out time frames in order to overcome any Muslim hold in the United States. Therefore, he listens to Muslim leaders in their going to Washington DC government offices to communicate with various departments. And he reads their web sites of hate, kill and lie or at least he’s informed of that via intelligence. But in the meantime, he needs to “keep the peace” in America by keeping Muslims under control so he appeases them with “noble faith.”

 

I prefer to think that Mr. Bush is somewhere in items (2) and (3) above. He has on another occasion referred to Islam as “an ideology of hate.” British Prime Minister Tony Blair has referred to Islam as “an evil ideology.” However, unfortunately Prince Charles has told media he is “fond” of Islam.

 

It could be that both men, Messrs. Bush and Blair, think Islam has been “high jacked” by radicals. If that’s what they think, then it’s incorrect but that’s what they think. Islam is Islam, no matter whether practiced by a killer obvious or killer potential. In the end, all will come to understand that horrific fact.

 

Now that Muslims around the globe are making the daily news with their angst over the Mohammed cartoons being published in newspapers thither and yon, Mr. Bush should come out front with the facts on Islam. Instead of referring henceforth to Islam as a “noble faith,” he must call Islam a dangerous, killing engine. There are too many supportive detailed facts to support just that. They are legion.

 

Knowing Mr. Bush’s nature for in-your-face honesty, not that comfortable with soft-pedaling truth, I would think the President would be in his prime when attacking Muslims’ worldwide murder machine for just what it is. That would finally confront the sleeper cells in America. It would expose the Muslim web sites that set forth outright lies.

 

It would make every Muslim henceforth accountable for what he does, knowing he’s being watched.

 

Further, any Muslims in the US who are suspect should be followed up to be prosecuted and if found guilty deported immediately. No Muslims henceforth should be admitted into the country. The Muslim problem is THE problem of this century. And it won’t just go away with verbal games of “appeasement” and “noble faith” gloss overs.

 

It would also support Mr. Bush’s surveillance network in the United States as being valid. Further, it would warn the American naïve of the truths about Islam. Right now there are scores of Americans who believe Mr. Bush’s “noble faith” statement. Why shouldn’t they? They don’t spend time daily checking out the Islam killing cult. They go about their errands, not researching the demonic theology.

 

Mr. Bush and all other free national leaders must come to the media with the truth about Islam instead of these cordial parlance games. All the so-called appeasement does is further Islam world rule and give lead time to the Islamic zealots to do us in–completely.

 

If the national leaders of liberty nations don’t call Islam what it is, we are going to have one wretched long road to travel—filling our troughs with human blood.

[Kulapavana 0]

Grant Swank is a Christian who never met a Muslim he did not hate... but his hatred is somehow OK, and his hate filled drivel is all over the media... of course there is no bias in Western media, is it? LOL!

 

as to hate filled religious book passages... oh, boy... do you want me to start with the Old Testament or the Talmud? how many innocent people were butchered on Moses's orders? how many "heathen" towns did Jews obliterate? how many Indian tribes were exterminated by the Christians?

 

aaaah... the legacy of religious hate in the Abrahamic traditions... why just single out Moslems?

[Guest guest]

because other abrahamic faiths have come of age, muslims haven't. They are carrying their dark past over to the present and possibly into the future. And that's dangerous, don't you think?

[Kulapavana 0]

judging by the approach this guy is taking, others still have a long way to go in moving away from hate. and then there is a question of injustice perpetrated by the people of these supposedly reformed religions.

 

what do you think is MORE moraly repugnant:

 

killing over 100,000 innocent people in Iraq by Christians, or killing 4,000 innocent people in US by Moslems?

[Bhakta Don Muntean 0]

...exactly!

[Bhakta Don Muntean 0]

Quote:

 

what do you think is MORE moraly repugnant

 

Reply:

 

..someone trying to decide the answer to that question...

[Guest guest]

have killed more than just 4000 people. Look at their history. it did not begin with 9/11.

[Kulapavana 0]

"muslims have killed more than just 4000 people. Look at their history. it did not begin with 9/11."

 

yes. but neither did Christians only kill 100,000 innocents in Iraq. their history begun much earlier too...

[Kulapavana 0]

Quote:

 

what do you think is MORE moraly repugnant

 

Reply:

 

..someone trying to decide the answer to that question...

-------------------------

 

yes. there should be no hesitation when answering such obvious questions. such hesitation can be seen a sign of a crooked heart. ask a child. rationalizing evil is very evil.

 

ALL such killing MUST be condemned.

[Guest guest]

yes. but neither did Christians only kill 100,000 innocents in Iraq. their history begun much earlier too...***

 

So you agree that muslims are savages too?

[Kulapavana 0]

certainly, many Muslims are just primitive savages. still, that is not a reason to hate them or to kill them. the Law must be applied uniformly. religious hate, violence and bigotry must be rejected regardless of the creed, or origin.

 

you can not reform others with injustice and lack of respect.

[Guest guest]

By Shafiya

 

 

 

We have all been listening slogans as to how Islam is a very scientific religion and anxious Islamists are eager to prove that many modern day scientific discoveries were actually predicted in the Quran. My article exposes this fallacy that Islam (for that matter any revealed religion) is scientific.

 

 

My argument as to why Islam is not scientific is that it never allows doubt. Doubt is one of the worst possible sins in Islam. But science is built on the foundations of doubt. A scientist is never a believer, for to believe in any thing means to accept facts without verification. A scientist is always a skeptic, always a doubter. Does this apply to Islam? NO, a big NO! Islam demands 100% faith with no room for any doubt. Islam demands that we accept what the koran says, what the hadiths say, 100%. There is no question for any doubt. No debate. No questioning accepted of the basic beliefs. Any one daring to do so is promptly silenced.

 

 

A true scientist does not follow this approach. For example if a scientific theory is propounded, it is rigorously scrutinized, experiments done, observations made and if all the results correspond to the theory, it is accepted, till it is denied by later observations and experiments.

 

 

 

Nothing is rigid! Nothing is fixed! Things are always in a state of flux in the world of science.

 

 

For example Newton’s theories were accepted by the scientific Fraternity for 300 years for they tallied with their experiments. Newton’s theories also tallied with the then observation of the planets. But science never demanded rigid belief in Newton’s theories. (People not believing in his Theories were not called unbelievers and persecuted.)

 

 

Along came the discovery of the atom and greater observation of the universe by more powerful telescopes. Newton’s theories didn't work well with the latest experiments, Until Einstein and Plank proposed the Quantum theory. Nowadays the quantum theory is the accepted theory in science, till newer observations turn up. Now Einstein is not called an apostate for questioning Newton, nor will the future scientists be if they challenge the quantum theory.

 

 

This is what we call the scientific approach...never believing in any thing 100%. This is science, and not believing in anything 100% and twisting facts and observations to correlate with some koranic verses. A religion that coerces blind belief in `revelations’ can never claim to be scientific, for the basis of science is doubt.

 

 

May be religions like Buddhism, Jainism, Confucianism, Taoism and Hinduism, which allow and even encourage dissent & free thought can claim to be scientific but certainly not Islam, Christianity or Judaism which depend on revelations and blind belief, and especially Islam which stifles intellectual enquiry at the pain of death & punishment, is never scientific and can never claim to be one.

 

[Guest guest]

Political Islam is a movement that arose in the 1940s as a reaction to foreign domination and political corruption.

 

Supported in the 1980s by western governments, it has grown in leaps and bounds since the Iranian revolution and the events following September 11th.

 

But Political Islam is not the answer to either western arrogance or political corruption. It seeks to return Muslims to the dark ages, limiting educational opportunity, denying the right of women to participate fully as adults in the life of the community, denying equality to non-Muslims, and imposing its own brutal and outmoded interpretation of Sharia law on every aspect of public life.

 

Among the hungry and destitute, Political Islam gained support with the promise of salvation for the dispossessed.

 

But while drawing its strength from those who would fight oppression, it seeks to enslave all Muslims. It opposes progressive movements for liberty, freedom, justice and equality, and is opposed to cultural and intellectual progress.

 

Throughout history Muslim reformers have opened up new vistas of intellectual and cultural achievement, tolerance and diversity. Political Islam on the contrary, seeks a narrow, petty, joyless, intolerant and closed society. It rejects all modernity, science and technology - except the technology of death.

 

Political Islam is a reactionary movement that has no place in the modern world. Over the last two decades, millions have been, and continue to be, murdered - shot, decapitated, stoned to death, and publicly hanged – by Islamic regimes and movements in Iran, the Sudan, Afghanistan, Algeria, Egypt, Nigeria, and Central Asia, while millions more have been forced into exile. The Islamists equate even well-founded dissent with blasphemy.

 

Thousands of Muslim opponents have been killed and millions silenced through fear. Our silence is taken as support for the Islamist agenda. But the vast majority of the world's Muslims reject Political Islam. The time has come for our voices to be heard.

 

The way to restore our pride is to move forward not backwards. We oppose Political Islam and its agenda of hatred and oppression, and its illegitimate pursuit of the most barbaric interpretation of Sharia law.

 

We seek a future in which all people, men and women, Muslims and non-Muslims, can enjoy the benefits of equality, democracy, human rights, freedom of inquiry, freedom of thought, and freedom of expression.

 

Join our campaign: NO to Political Islam.

Say YES to Freedom, Equality and Human Rights.

 

Campaign Committee "NO to Political Islam".

 

The wording of the petition is as follows:

 

We, the undersigned, oppose Political Islam, its agenda of hatred and oppression, and its imposition of the most barbaric interpretation of Sharia law. We seek a future in which all people, men and women, Muslims and non-Muslims, enjoy the benefits of equality, justice, democracy and human rights, and freedom of inquiry, freedom of thought, and freedom of expression.

 

 

[krsna 3]

forgot to log in

[Guest guest]

 

 

By Ron Banerjee

February 19, 2006

 

 

The global reaction to the recent cartoons of Muhammad in Denmark is part of a familiar pattern. In 2004, a Dutch filmmaker named van Gogh was shot dead by Islamic fanatics because he made a film which dared to question the treatment of women in Islam. Similarly, global violence and death threats accompanied the publication of Salman Rushdie’s book, the Satanic Verses. His Norwegian publisher, William Nygaard, was shot by Islamic fanatics in his own country. Every supposed ‘insult’ to Islam leads to violence, murder, and threats.

 

Other communities, particularly the Hindus, have also suffered their fair share of inaccurate and demeaning assaults on their religion and traditions in the west. In late 2005, the Toronto Film Festival and Canadian media bestowed awards and honor on Deepa Mehta, director of the movie Water. This movie featured a bizarre plot involving widows in the holy city Varanasi (which is equivalent to the Vatican or Mecca) being forced into prostitution by Hindu priests. Despite the fact that the movie was extremely demeaning and depicted practices virtually unheard of in India, Hindus in the west did not resort to violence or murder to express their displeasure.

 

This was not the first time that Hindus have been unfairly stigmatized. In 2003, the Toronto Star, which bends over backwards to flatter and please some of their favored minority groups, published a nude picture of a revered Hindu goddess. Again in 2005, the AIDS Committee of Toronto put on a fashion show which featured semi-nude transsexuals dressed as Hindu deities. In both these cases, the large Hindu community in Toronto and the Western world did not burn buildings, destroy public property, or attack Westerners. Instead, they used democratic and peaceful means to voice their protest.

 

To understand what gives rise to these divergent reactions, we need to examine the historical record. Unlike Hinduism, Islam was imposed on adherents of other faiths through conquest and subjugation. In South Asia, Islam was spread through a brutal conquest, which began in the 8th century AD. In fact, famed historian Will Durant has referred to this conquest as the bloodiest story in history. During this period, many Hindus were enslaved and millions were massacred. Fear of death, subjugation, and enslavement forced hapless Hindu victims to convert to Islam. Fanatical Islamists, who exercise significant power and influence, continue to nurture these notions and ideals. These elements are responsible for the violence and murder that follows each perceived insult of Islam throughout the west.

 

Apologists, whether in the West or India, often attempt to justify the acts of Islamic fanatics by arguing that such acts are legitimate means of protest against discrimination or imperialism. This argument is untenable: Islamist fanatics are not victims but rather champions of imperialism and bigotry. Their utter disregard for people of other faiths and their desire to Islamize, through conquest, the non-Muslim world, including India and Europe, clearly demonstrates their imperial designs.

 

Democratic societies, both in India and the West, can dissuade these fanatics only by demonstrating that legitimate means of protest are more successful than violence and murder. Fanatical Islamists receive tremendous incentives to continue their behavior when they find that their methods are more successful than those employed by groups which utilize democratic means.

 

A just democratic society should reward good behavior and penalize negative conduct. Western democracies, when dealing with radical Islamists, appear to be doing the precise opposite. The West, for its own survival, ought to reconsider this curiously self-destructive attitude.

 

Ron Banerjee is the director of the Hindu Conference of Canada.

 

[Kulapavana 0]

"The religion of Islam must be outlawed in recognition that it is in actuality a political movement dedicated to the violent destruction of all non-believers. (Just as all non-muslim religions are outlawed in Saudi Arabia and non-muslims are murdered daily worldwide ) All mosques will be closed or destroyed."

--------------------------------

 

you should think twice before you post this kind of drivel

 

[krsna 3]

By Khaled Waleed

 

2006/02/20

 

This is how we treat the infidels in Saudi Arabia :

 

We abuse the non-Muslims living and working in Saudi Arabia all the time, especially the Christians and the Jews.

 

We call them grandsons of pigs and monkeys. We say this openly, everywhere, particularly in mosques.

 

We do not respect any religions except Islam. This is the Saudi official policy: all religions other than Islam are false. Only Islam is the true religion. To accomplish this extremely bigoted notion, the Saudi state policy is to convert to Islam as many infidels as possible. So, proselytising for Islam is a major activity of the government and the religious department. Those who convert to Islam are rewarded handsomely. This is a kind of bribe, you might say—to force infidels into Islam. Those preachers and Islamic workers who succeed in converting the loathsome infidels to Islam might also expect to be richly rewarded.

 

In Saudi Arabia , discrimination against the non-Muslims is absolutely rampant, very clear and open. It starts with aqama (red cards for the non-Muslims and green cards for the Muslims). The rule on taxation is also different for the Muslims and the non-Muslims. This is open, clear and meticulously planned Islamic apartheid which might even surpass the enormity of the apartheid policies of the erstwhile South African government.

 

In Saudi Arabia , non-Muslims are merely tolerated. They have no right to build any places of worship for their customary religious rituals and practices. Non-Muslims are not allowed to observe their rites, celebrate their religious festivals or even extend congratulations to one another in front of any Saudis. If any infidels dare to carry out his religion openly, he is threatened with immediate deportation from Saudi Arabia .

 

Non-Muslims living in Saudi Arabia cannot marry any Muslim women. This is completely forbidden.

 

No non-Saudi could acquire Saudi Nationality either by birth or through naturalisation. Recently, there have been some minor changes to the Citizenship laws, but no non-Muslim could ever be awarded with Saudi citizenship.

 

Infidels living in Saudi Arabia cannot build their own schools.

 

Non-Muslims who are lucky enough to live in their own compounds can practice their religious activities in secret, out-of-sight of Muslims. This means they have to live like prisoners in their abodes. They could never invite any Muslims in their homes.

 

During the month of Ramadan, non-Muslims are instructed by the Saudi authorities to respect the religious feeling of the Muslims. The infidels are ordered not to consume any food in front of Muslims. Any violation of this requirement might result in expulsion from Saudi Arabia of the infidel culprit—merely for eating in the presence of a Muslim. That is why, at the outset, in the month of Ramadan, to show respect to the Muslims, the government announces that if the infidels want to consume food they must do this in hiding, completely out of view of any Muslims. I have a premonition that the Muslims living in Europe , very soon, might demand such a law from the governments of their host countries.

 

The law of Sharia in Saudi Arabia forces non-Muslim women to wear Muslim costume abaya. If any non-Muslim women refuse to comply with this rule she will be in deep trouble with the enforcement authority.

 

Saudi authorities exert enormous pressure on the non-Muslims to convert to Islam. I have personally witnessed this forced conversion right in front of my eyes. And, to tell the truth, to the joy of many Wahabi Islamists, the Islamic authority is quite successful in this subtle forced conversion into Wahabi brand of Islam. To perpetuate such religious propaganda and coercion, these events of Wahabi Islam conversions are advertised in the leading newspapers with great fanfare which includes the photographs of the newly-converted Muslims published in the media.

 

In Saudi Arabia , unless a non-Muslim had converted to Islam, he/she is not eligible to receive any charity (Zakat) whatsoever. That is why many infidels from poor countries are enticed to convert to Islam so that the rich Saudi Muslims could earn Allah’s blessings by bestowing charity to these poor converts.

 

Now, contrast those despicable treatments of non-Muslims in Saudi Arabia with the treatment of Muslims in infidel lands.

 

Saudi Arabia builds mosques all around the world, especially in America and Europe .

 

Muslims living in infidel lands enjoy full right to marry any women of their choice. They have the right to build their own Islamic Schools.

 

Muslims are eligible to acquire citizenship either through naturalisation or by birth. Remember, non-Muslims in Saudi Arabia have no such right,

 

Muslims enjoy full entitlement of proselytising their religion and convert infidels into Islam. True to this spirit, the Muslims in infidel lands are hell-bent to perform just this—they would like to convert all the harami kafirs in infidel countries to Islam

 

Muslims living in the west can criticise other religions (especially Christianity and Judaism) to the fullest extent, but kafirs living in Muslim countries are legally bound not to mention a single sentence which is critical of pure, serene Islam—it is blasphemous and punishable by death.

 

But all those rights enjoyed by the Muslims in western countries are not enough for them. They want more. That is why they perpetrate 9/11 on the innocent people of the USA . That is why very few Muslims had ever criticised Bin Ladin’s atrocities on the western people. All those crimes of Bin Laden were holy Islamic acts—in full agreement with the Islamic tenets. That is why majority Muslims are Bin Ladin’s supporters. Until today, I have not heard any Imam in Saudi Arabia who had said Bin Ladin is wrong. No Imam has, so far, declared Bin Ladin a non-Muslim or a kafir. All Imams support him—if not openly, then secretly. Being a native of Saudi Arabia and having lived here since my birth, I can certainly vouch of what I say. I hear people’s (Saudi) conversation, and they are in praise of Bin Ladin’s murder of infidels. I watched on Television a famous Sheikh eulogising Bin Laden, although the Sheikh admitted that Bin Ladin’s actions hurt the reputation of Saudi Arabia .

 

It is absolutely audacious for the Muslims to criticise the French law banning religious symbols in French public schools. Muslim’s cry on this is nothing but the practice of pure double-standard. They would not allow non-Muslims to exercise their religious freedom in Islamic countries, but they would expect the kafir lands to respect and uphold their archaic religious (Islamic) symbolism. What sheer nonsensical and hypocritical this demand could be, come to think of it!

 

To illustrate the utter menace of Islam that Europe faces today, perhaps it would be germane to mention the killing of artist/film director Van Gough in the Netherlands , who was brutally murdered, in broad daylight, by an Islamist Jihadist. I am very certain that in the coming months and years many such murders will be committed by the Muslims living in Europe and America . Many innocent western people will have to die in the hands of Islam, just because they happen to be non-Muslims. I am writing this because I am a Saudi and I know very well what Islam is all about.

 

I understand that many readers are already aware of the grave peril of Islam to the current civilisation, thanks to the power of Internet. In fact, I did not write anything new. What prompted me to warn the non-Muslims is that: last week I received a number of e-mails listing the Danish products which I must avoid. I see a great calamity is developing quite fast. I feel that the world is about to face a crisis—a showdown between Islam and the rest of the world. Those non-Muslims who still believe that somewhere there is such a thing called ‘peaceful’ or ‘moderate’ Islam, this cartoon incident should be a wake-up call to them.

 

It could be argued that the cartoons depicting Muhammad might be offensive to some Muslims .This, to me, seems to be fair enough. But then, the cartoons are the work of a single or a few cartoonists or it might be a newspaper. Then, why should the Muslim world punish the innocent people of Denmark ? Is this a fair treatment? When I ask this question to my friends they become very angry. They told me that entire Europe is the enemy of Islam and all Europeans deserve to be punished. It is because the Europeans would never stop criticising Islam.

 

So, I told my friends that many Americans and Europeans consider all Muslims to be terrorists—they must be correct in their opinion. They (my friends) cannot refute me; instead, they grow more irate. They even challenge me to be either with them (Muslims) or with the infidels. But I am on neither side. I am on the side of justice and fairness.

 

We criticise others, but then, we do worse than what we are criticising. Truly, Muslims are dim-witted. They do not realise that the USA and Europe could destroy the entire Muslim population if they were to emulate the Islam’s example of apartheid, unfairness and absolute perpetration of hate towards non-Muslims. The Muslims are very lucky that these infidels do not imitate our policies.

 

Today, Muslims are seeking apology for a dead man (Muhammad) from the government of Denmark .

 

My question is: who really deserve an apology—Muslims or the non-Muslims around the world?

 

 

 

[Kulapavana 0]

A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada:

 

1. "Hazrat Muhammad, the inaugurator of the Islam religion, I accept him as an empowered servant of God because he preached God-consciousness in those parts of the world and induced them to accept the authority of God. He is accepted as the servant of God and we have all respect for him."? ( Letter, 2-4-1976)

 

2. So therefore, by that symptom, we accept Lord Jesus Christ as Saktyaves avatara, or Hazrat Muhammad, he's also. Because these two religious leaders of the world, they preached about the glorification of the Supreme Lord. And they sacrificed everything for preaching the glories of the Lord. Therefore... And their influence and their followers, there are... These are the symptoms by which we can understand that Jesus Christ and Hazrat Muhammad was, were Saktyaves avataras. ( CC Madhya-lila 20.367-84)

 

3. "Vedas means the books of transcendental knowledge. Not only the Bhagavad Gita, even the Bible or the Quran, they are also."? (lecture 29-7-68) 4. Srila Prabhupada:No, no. Christianity is Vaisnavism.

 

Dr. Patel: Vaisnavism? Absolutely Vaisnavism.

 

Srila Prabhupada:Islam is also Vaisnavism.

 

Dr. Patel: Mohammedanism is not Vaisnavism.

 

Srila Prabhupada:No, no. Caitanya Mahaprabhu had talked with the Pathanas.

 

He proved that "Your religion is Vaisnavism."? (February 17, 1974, Bombay) 5. "Chaitanya Mahaprabhu proved devotional service from the Quran.

 

So, it requires a devotee who can explain God from any Godly literature"? ( Morning Walk, June 6, 1974, Geneva)

 

6. "Then Islam is Vaishnava dharma in a crude form like christianty."?(room conversation, Tehran 14-3-75)

 

7. They accept God. They are also our brothers because they accept God. They are not atheist. Atheist don't accept God. "there is no God"? say the atheist.

 

But here they are theists. They accept God. They want to please God. They go to the church, go to mosques, offer prayers. Prayers is also bhakti, devotional service. The Christian way or the Muslim way is to offer prayer. The Muslims offer obeisences & offer prayer. So that is also Bhakti (devotion). The Christians also do that, so that is also bhakti. And they accept God; We accept God. So there is no difference. But the only point is who is that God. ( room conversation, Tehran 14-3-75)

[krsna 3]

1. "Hazrat Muhammad, the inaugurator of the Islam religion, I accept him as an empowered servant of God because he preached God-consciousness in those parts of the world and induced them to accept the authority of God. He is accepted as the servant of God and we have all respect for him."? ( Letter, 2-4-1976)

 

2. So therefore, by that symptom, we accept Lord Jesus Christ as Saktyaves avatara, or Hazrat Muhammad, he's also. Because these two religious leaders of the world, they preached about the glorification of the Supreme Lord. And they sacrificed everything for preaching the glories of the Lord. Therefore... And their influence and their followers, there are... These are the symptoms by which we can understand that Jesus Christ and Hazrat Muhammad was, were Saktyaves avataras. ( CC Madhya-lila 20.367-84)

 

3. "Vedas means the books of transcendental knowledge. Not only the Bhagavad Gita, even the Bible or the Quran, they are also."? (lecture 29-7-68) 4. Srila Prabhupada:No, no. Christianity is Vaisnavism.

 

Dr. Patel: Vaisnavism? Absolutely Vaisnavism.

 

Srila Prabhupada:Islam is also Vaisnavism.

 

Dr. Patel: Mohammedanism is not Vaisnavism.

 

Srila Prabhupada:No, no. Caitanya Mahaprabhu had talked with the Pathanas.

 

He proved that "Your religion is Vaisnavism."? (February 17, 1974, Bombay) 5. "Chaitanya Mahaprabhu proved devotional service from the Quran.

 

So, it requires a devotee who can explain God from any Godly literature"? ( Morning Walk, June 6, 1974, Geneva)

 

6. "Then Islam is Vaishnava dharma in a crude form like christianty."?(room conversation, Tehran 14-3-75)

 

7. They accept God. They are also our brothers because they accept God. They are not atheist. Atheist don't accept God. "there is no God"? say the atheist.

 

But here they are theists. They accept God. They want to please God. They go to the church, go to mosques, offer prayers. Prayers is also bhakti, devotional service. The Christian way or the Muslim way is to offer prayer. The Muslims offer obeisences & offer prayer. So that is also Bhakti (devotion). The Christians also do that, so that is also bhakti. And they accept God; We accept God. So there is no difference. But the only point is who is that God?"

 

 

 

Ok Kula, Is ISLAM cool?

 

Or is it a 'crude form of religion'?

 

There is a grievous fault in ISLAM which is not mentioned?

Otherwise why is ISLAM creating so much havoc in this world?

[Kulapavana 0]

Ok Kula, Is ISLAM cool?

 

Or is it a 'crude form of religion'?

 

There is a grievous fault in ISLAM which is not mentioned?

Otherwise why is ISLAM creating so much havoc in this world?

-----------------------

 

in my personal opinion islam is a crude form of religion, just like other abrahamic traditions.

 

as to faults. was KC to be blamed for activities of people like Kirtananda?

 

and as to who generates most havoc in the world, that is a very, very debatable issue... just like the issue who is a bigger demon: the guy who is responsible for 100,000 dead innocent Iraqis, or the guy responsible for 4,000 dead innocent Americans?

 

 

just dont be primitive in your vision, like the people you so much despise... please?

[krsna 3]

 

 

 

Were the hijackers radicals? Were they extremists, radicals or are they are following the Koran as Bin Laden is saying. This is something we will have to make our mind up as individuals and as a nation as the truth comes out. The translated version of the Arabic document that was left behind instructed the hijackers “You should pray, you should fast. You should ask God for guidance, you should ask God for help . . . Continue to pray throughout this night. Continue to recite the Koran.” What verses would they be reading before committing this inhuman act?

 

The Dallas Morning News quoted federal officials as saying that a copy of an Arabic-language prayer guide had been found in the wreckage of Flight 93. The first four pages of the document obtained by The Post recite some basic Islamic history about the prophet fighting infidels with 100 men against 1,000.

 

Were these men wrong or alone in their interpretation and representation of Islam? The truth is that young Muslims are recruited for Jihad all over the world, especially in Israel. Unfortunately they are being used by evil and clever men to further their cause by religion! We know now 16 out of the 19 terrorists came into America with student visas. There are still 600,000 foreign students on our soil with student visas, something we need to further look into. This is what we are now face. Is there is an Islamic fifth column operating on America’s soil, that the American public needs to know about? I realize that there are many conservative Muslims in America and elsewhere who would nothing to do with this kind of Islam, and so I'm not addressing those who are in the minority in America. We are looking at those who come to America in disguise, for in their homelands they would be open and vocal in what they believe.

 

How loyal are some Muslims to America? What would they do if they have to choose between defending America and their God or fellow Muslims? In the Sunday edition of the New York Times, a reporter interviewed Muslim American students in Brooklyn, one of the male students said, on the record, that he would abandon the United States and give his own life to back an “observant Muslim who is fighting for an Islamic cause.” This is not an isolated opinion.

 

Harvard's Samuel P. Huntington wrote in his book The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, “Muslims make up about one-fifth of the world's population but in the 1990s they have been far more involved in intergroup violence than the people of any other civilization. The evidence is overwhelming.”

 

The fact is that 10 out of the 20 top terrorists on the FBI list have the name ahmed or Mohammad in their names. What is the message sent when they are named after Mohammed? Would Mohammed do such things? Maybe we need to ask Muslims “What would Mohammed do?”

 

It is a spiritual fact that the God we serve and worship will conform us to his likeness.

 

What is Jihad?

 

This has becomes a war of Islam within itself. It is the fundamentalist Islam, the ancient Islam clashing with the conservative Islam of today. Each have there own interpretations of their Qur’an. Many new Muslim theologians argued for a new interpretation of the Qur'an, some are good with a more conservative view and some want to go back to the old. This conflict called Jihad that we have now entered into is of a religious nature, and it’s meaning is crucial.

 

The Jihad ideology and the dhimmi rules are not in the Qur'an. These apparently were developed by Muslim theologians after the death of Muhammad. They were the result of the interpretation of some verses in the Qur'an and some from the hadith (their commentaries). These were mostly composed during the period of the Islamic conquest in the eighth or ninth century, when there was a strong military confrontation between Christianity and Islam. But it is not only Jews and Christians that are in this conflict, but also Buddhists, Hindus and any other religion that is not Islamic.

 

A dhimmi is any non-Muslim who is tolerated under the Islamic rule of government.

 

Jihad is the Muslim view that the world is divided into two parts: Muslim and the non-Muslims lands. In Islam there is the idea of Jihad (the struggle to extend the interests of Islam). The Quran speaks of the struggle within oneself (inner jihad), the struggle within the Islamic community (external jihad), and the struggle among unbelievers (also an external jihad). It is this one which becomes a militant aggression against those that oppose their beliefs.

 

Surah 29:68-69, (Al-Ankabut) introduces the idea that the Muslim will encounter many who are practitioners of error, and it is their duty to be alert to error and not succumb to it. “And who does more wrong than he who invents a lie against God or rejects the Truth when it reaches Him? Is there not a home in Hell for those who reject Faith? Sura 29:69 “And those who strive (Jihad,) in Our (Cause), We will certainly guide them to Our Paths: for verily God is with those who do right.” The term “Jihad” or “struggle” is used in this sense, although it is not the more common use.

 

In Surah 25:51-52 (Al-Furqan) Muslims are instructed to “struggle” against unbelievers with the Qur'an. This places the struggle in the realm of an intellectual struggle. “Had it been Our Will, We could have sent a warner to every center of population, 52 Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive (Jihad,) against them with the utmost strenuousness, with the (Qur'an).”

 

When Mohammad established his community (the umma) his intention was to have both Jews and Christians be part of it, by paying a designated tax. But they did not accept him as a prophet, Sura 2:113 “The Jews say: “The Christians have naught (to stand) upon; and the Christians say: “The Jews have naught (To stand) upon.” Yet they (Profess to) study the (same) Book. Like unto their word is what those say who know not; but God will judge between them in their quarrel on the Day of Judgment.

 

Jihad is the normal state of relationship between the non-Muslim and the Muslim. It is a perpetual conflict. The concept of Jihad preceded the Crusades by five centuries. It was with Jihad that the Christian populations and Jewish communities became subject to the Islamic law. If they submitted without resistance to the Muslim armies, they were given protection by the Islamic ruler, but this was protection from the laws of jihad, not protection because they were cared or loved by them. If they paid the tax, (a ransom money) their life was safe. Sura 9:29 “Fight those who do not believe in Allah … until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a states of subjection with willing submission and feel themselves subdued” (1917 Maulana Mohammed Ali Translation).

 

Tolerance was given to Jews and Christians only on the condition that they would accept and submit to their system of Shari’a and have inferiority. Under countries that have shari'a, not everyone is equal, only Muslims are equal. Under what we consider a declaration of human rights in America or the western world, we recognize that everyone has the right to live by their conscience and have liberty, the freedom to choose

 

Jizya is the tax levied on Dhimmis by Muslim rulers. A Dhimmi is a non-Muslim tolerated under Shari’a, Islamic rule.

 

When non-Muslims or a non-Muslim country pays a tribute to the Islamic countries, war can be replaced by a temporary peace. But if they stop paying the Jizya, (the tax), the jihad resumes because jihad is the normal state of relationship between the non-Muslim and the Muslim. Those in the early growth of Islam that disagreed, that did not want to be converted to Islam or to be reduced to slavery, fled to the mountains or to other cities. In this era non-Muslims had to dress differently (sometime humiliating) when they went out in public so that they would not be confused with Muslims. Non-Muslims were not allowed to practice their religion in public. Those of other religions were not permitted to build new synagogues or churches. The Jews could not repair their synagogues the Christians their churches and In time fall into ruins.

 

The history of dhimmi, include Jews and Christians are a single unit because they are bound together as the People of the Book. This phrase the people of the book is used several times in the Qu’ran. In Sura 5:15: “O people of the Book! There hath come to you our Messenger, revealing to you much that ye used to hide in the Book, and passing over much (that is now unnecessary). There hath come to you from Allah a (new) light and a perspicuous Book.” Here we find that Mohammad’s revelation replaces the Old and New Testament.

 

For us to ignore militant Islam’s intolerance toward what they deem as unbelievers, is a grave and costly mistake. There is no middle ground in this kind of jihad, Sura 9:5,29,41 “Slay the idolators [non-Muslims] wherever ye find them, and take them captive, and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the last Day…. Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah!”

 

We need to understand not only how they live, but why. Shari’a (Islamic law) is not practiced by all Arab nations but they all do not allow freedom of speech, the press, or religion in their lands as we have in America or in other western countries. Muslims are able to build mosques in England, America and many western countries with no protest, but they do not allow others the same rights in their countries. This is because Islam does not support a democracy.

 

The Muslim governments in Sudan had imposed Sharia, Islamic law in 1993. Over 2 million Sudanese Christians and animists have been killed and enslaved, since then barely an outcry is heard about this. For years in Indonesia, the Philippines and East Timor, Christians are being massacred by Muslims. Coptic Christians in Egypt whose religion arrived prior to Islam, have been slaughtered by fundamentalist Muslims. The authorities have done little to stop them. Arab Christians are oppressed by Muslims in their own lands as are Christians in many Arab lands such as Syria, Iraq, Lebanon. Churches and Christian homes in Nigeria are being burned, and Christians are murdered, by militant Muslims because they believe they are unbelievers, so they are doing God’s will. In Saudi Arabia it is illegal to be anything but a Muslim. The death penalty is given if ones conscience has them believe another religion, especially Christianity.

 

In the article Islam “According to Oprah”, By Rod Dreher, columnist for the New York Post October 8, . quotes author Samuel P. Huntington and says “In his 1996 book The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, Harvard's Samuel P. Huntington warned us of deluding ourselves about the true nature of the Islamic threat. “Some Westerners, including President Bill Clinton, have argued that the West does not have problems with Islam but only with violent Islamist extremists,” Huntington wrote. “Fourteen hundred years of history demonstrate otherwise.”

 

An imam in Gaza earlier this year broadcasted a sermon over Palestinian Authority radio calling on Muslims to murder Christians and Jews because it is their Islamic duty. Broadcasts such as “first we go after the Saturday people then the Sunday people” are not uncommon. For it is the Qur'an that says 5:36 “The punishment of those who wage war against God and His Apostle, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter.” So they take a literal interpretation of these verses implementing them in their daily lives.

 

The last hour with the false Christ (Daljal) is an important topic in the Hadith as it warns of his coming. According to the Bible he will make a peace treaty with Israel. This is exactly what this war is about.

 

Mohammed said, “The last hour will not come before the Muslims fight the Jews, and the Muslims kill them.” (Mishkat Al Masabih Sh.M. Ashraf pp.147, 721, 810-11, 1130) It is the Hadith that explains the Qur’an, it is their commentary on the writings. Hadith, the body of traditions relating to Mohammed and now supplemental to the Koran: He (Abu Hurayah) reported the messenger of Allah as saying: The last hour will not come before the Muslims fight the Jews and the Muslims kill them, so that Jews will hide behind stones and trees and the Stone and the tree will say, O Muslim, O servant of God! There is a Jew behind me; come and kill him. The only exception will be the box-thorn for it is one of the trees of the Jews. (Sahih of Muslim, quoted by Israel and the Prophecies of Al Quran by Ali Akbar, Bismi Publishers 1992, p.44)

 

If a good portion of Islam believes we are in this hour then we can understand the “why” of what is now taking place.

 

We have heard that Muslims are for peace, but most have not asked what they mean by peace.

 

What does it mean when Muslims say they are for peace? For the most part means that there would be no struggle or resistance to Islam. That those who are not Muslim would submit. Islam means submission, a Muslim is one who submits to Allah, and there is not peace without Allah. George Braswell, Jr. (B.D., Yale; Ph.D., U of NC) lived in Iran for seven years, defines the word “peace” from a Muslim perspective, “The world…of Islam must conquer and rule over those of ignorance and disobedience…. The peace of the world cannot be secured until the peoples come under the rule and protection of Islam.” (What You Need To Know About Islam and Muslims, p. 87)

 

We hear they for peace, and they have quoted their own verse to prove it; but it is out of its full context. They have said to us "anyone who kills another man it is as if he has killed all mankind." Here is the whole quote which changes it’s meaning as far as I’m concerned. "For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind" (Sura 5:27-32) These "other words" certainly change the meaning of the verse. The question that should be asked is why they cannot quote their own verse correctly to the public. To Muslim all those who do not worship Allah are corrupted. If they misquote their own verse to the public doesn’t this show they either do not know their own religious book or it is done on purpose. The question would be why?

 

Personally when I hear of a religion is promoting peace as in tolerance, I think of Buddhism before Islam.

 

Again in Sura 17:33 “Nor take life - which God has made sacred - except for just cause. And if anyone is slain wrongfully, we have given his heir authority (to demand qisas or to forgive): but let him nor exceed bounds in the matter of taking life; for he is helped (by the Law).” While a cursory reading of this passage can support the view of not to kill, it still has in it a qualification of “except for just cause” and “slain wrongfully.” Again this can mean something quite different than the way we interpret it here in the west. There may be Muslims that would not interpret these verses in a negative way, but what about history. How did they traditionally use these verses? This will have to be left up to those who specialty is in the area of Islamic history, mine is not.

 

Jihad is a necessary element in Islam. Islam turned to aggression as those refused the message and the messenger. Mohammed as general planned 65 campaigns and lead 27 invasions, certainly these would be considered Jihad. Mohammad was sometimes diplomatic and would institute a peace. But we are not focusing on the character of Mohammad, but the history and the revelation. The sword was most often used to conquer those steeped in paganism, and at one time Islam had conquered all of Northern Africa and came close to overtaking Europe. The belief that people need to have the one God who is Allah spurred the followers to spread this religion. Islam spread its influence not by engaging in dialogue and persuading people by truth, but by the offer of submitting to Allah. Unfortunately this became a similarity in the “Christian crusades” as well.

 

It is a spiritual fact that the God we serve, follow and worship will conform us to his likeness.

 

There are about 100 verses that endorse the use violence, and a plain reading of these is apparent what they say is what they mean.

 

 

[krsna 3]

from Ali Sina:

 

What would happen if you do nothing? If the governments do not take action to subdue the Islamic bullies, people will rise and take the matter in their own hands and chaos will ensue. Nothing is more dangerous than doing nothing. We are already seeing the sign of discontent among the people in Australia , and several countries in Europe . It would be foolish for the governments to not take drastic action to reduce the threat of Islam. If vigilantism takes root, it would be their fault. The handwritings are on the wall. Only a blind can’t see them. The governments must show leadership. Immediate and drastic measures are needed to bring the situation under control. We will have to get tough with the bully if we want to tame him. An ounce of preventions is worth more than a pound of cure.

 

At the same time everyone must realize that this is not an ethnic war. Our greatest allies are the ex-Muslims. Many of them are in grave danger including from their own families. Women are particularly vulnerable. Protection must be provided for them and it must be safe and easy for them to leave Islam and even their fanatical families. They are our greatest assents. They are the unsung heroes who have valiantly broken their own shackles and can help others to break theirs. If the civil war is to be averted in Europe, it is thanks to them. The future of mankind and its peace depends on them. Islamic terrorism will be defeated, when a great number of Muslims start leaving Islam. We have to make this exodus as easy as possible.

 

Do not confuse the ex-Muslims with the so called "moderate Muslims". There is no moderation in Islam. The correct word for moderate Muslim is hypocrite Muslim. Hypocrite Muslims are worse than the fanatical Muslims. They deceive you to stab you in the back.

 

We must also encourage the debate on Islam. Is Islam a religion or a political movement in the guise of religion? What is the ultimate goal of Islam? Isn't it true that Muslims everywhere must strive to overthrow the government and establish the caliphate? How can Muslims be loyal to the country in which they live, to its democracy and constitution, and at the same time belong to a party or cult that aims to destroy that democracy and subdue that country? These questions should not be swept under the carpet. They must be discussed in open debates and Muslims must be asked to answer them. Where their loyalty lies? Are we not harboring our own enemies among us?

 

No problem can be solved unless it is thoroughly understood. No question is so impolite that can't be asked. If Muslims have satisfactory answers to these questions, there is no reason for them to be upset. They should come forth and dissipate all misunderstandings. But if they decide to resort to hooliganism and throw tantrums to avoid answering, it is clear that they do not want you to know the answer to these questions. "Oh, you are hurting my sensitivity" is not a satisfactory answer. It is argumentum ad misericordiam and a logical fallacy. As Jesus said, only truth will set us free. This is a major problem we are facing today, perhaps the biggest humanity has ever faced and we must know the truth. You can't solve any problem blindly, let alone one as complex and critical as the one we are facing.

 

My other advice for the European politicians is not to deal with the rogue regimes. For years, the Iranian dissidents have been warning the European governments of the danger of the mullahs. They paid no heed and kept supporting these thugs, blinded by their short-sighted greed. Now that the prospect of a nuclear holocaust threatens their own existence they are contemplating to bomb the poor and the oppressed people of Iran . The foreign policies of the European governments have always been unethical. Politicians don’t give a hoot. People must demand ethical conduct from their governments even vis-à-vis other nations. We are ONE people! These lines we have drawn on the maps are illusions. We must treat people of all races and nationalities ethically.

 

[krsna 3]

ISLAM'S WAR

AGAINST

THE WEST

 

by

 

Howard Bloom

 

 

Before 9/11, the webpage of Jerusalem's Al-Aqsa Mosque allowed those who speak English to hear and read the words used in its weekly Friday sermons to promote violence against non-believers. After 9/11, the English-language translation of the site was removed. Click here to see what's left. Then click Islam's War Against The West on the navigation bar to the left to continue.

 

"Man's greatest good fortune is to chase and defeat his enemy, seize his total possessions, leave his married women weeping and wailing, ride his gelding (and) use the bodies of his women as a nightshirt and support." Genghis Khan

 

"He butchered three of them with an ax and decapitated them. In other words, instead of using a gun to kill them he took a hatchet to chop their heads off. He struggled face to face with one of them, and throwing down his ax managed to break his neck and devour his flesh in front of his comrades. ...I ...award him the Medal of the Republic." General Mustafa Tlas, Syria's Minister of Defense praising a hero of the 1973 war with Israel before the Syrian National Assembly

 

"Appeasing of governments which revel in slaughter is an invitation to worldwide catastrophe." Fang Lizhi

 

 

 

 

Two thousand three hundred years ago a Greek who even his fellow Greeks called a barbarian conquered the entire Persian Empire. His name was Alexander the Great.

 

The whole thing was as unlikely as the Vietnamese turning around and conquering the U.S. But it happened. In fact, in history it happens over and over again.

 

It happened in 1870 when the French were forced to fight a country which just a few years earlier had been a disorganized clutter of rag-tag mini-states ruled by comic opera princes. The land of Napoleon was rated by every armchair general as the mightiest military force on the Continent. But France lost. Its army was chopped up like ground round. Its glorious capital, Paris, faced the humiliation of a foreign army marching down its streets. The upstart nation that had brought France to its knees was... Germany.

 

An equally surprising fate occurred to England when it trained its guns on the superpowers of its day in two world wars. When the smoke had cleared, two backward nations of Johnny-come-latelies ended up dominating the world. These countries, whose inhabitants had usually been regarded as just one small step above the primitive, were The United States and Russia.

 

The moral is simple. Never forget the pecking order's surprises. Today's superpower is tomorrow's conquered state. Yesterday's overlooked mob is often the ruler of tomorrow. Never underestimate the third world. Never be complacent about barbarians.

 

 

 

 

 

Some readers will be outraged by my presumption. How dare I regard any group as barbaric. What appalling ethnocentrism! There are no barbarians. There are simply cultures we haven't taken the time to understand. Cultures to whom we haven't given sufficient aid. Cultures in need of development. Beneath the skin, all men and women are the same. They have the same needs, the same emotions, and the same ideals. If you simply took those folks you speak of so contemptuously out for a cup of coffee, you would discover that they are just like you and me.

 

But there are barbarians--people whose cultures glorify the act of murder, and elevate violence to a holy deed. These cultures portray the extinction of other human beings as a validation of manliness, a heroic gesture in the name of truth, or simply a good way to get ahead in the world.

 

Certain Islamic societies tend to be high on this list. On November 28, 1943, Franklin Roosevelt met secretly with Joseph Stalin and Winston Churchill in Iran. When Roosevelt returned home, he sent a telegram to the Shah thanking the Iranian ruler for his hospitality. The President explained that he'd noticed the hills in Iran were bare. American agronomists had learned to prevent soil erosion and enrich the landscape by planting trees on slopes like these. Roosevelt suggested an experimental tree-planting program.

 

The Iranian leader thanked FDR. But privately the young potentate was highly insulted: According to Moslem standards, the gift demeaned his virility. Stalin was far more understanding of Mohammedan culture. He offered the Shah tanks and planes.

 

Hafez al-Assad, father of the current leader of Syria, worked hard to solidify his position as the country's undisputed ruler. He didn't do it by selling Syria's citizens on the values of his political platform. Instead, he slaughtered 20,000 Moslem Fundamentalists who opposed him.

 

According to The New York Times, in 1980 Yasir Arafat, the Palestinian leader, had a Lebanese imam (a holy man roughly equivalent to a pastor) shot in the head for refusing to preach the propaganda of the PLO. Then Arafat visited the imam's Lebanese home, took his ten-year-old son aside, explained to the little boy that his father had been murdered by the Israelis, handed the lad a gun, and said, "When you grow up, use this to take revenge." Arafat wanted the boy to be a killer.

 

Holiness, righteousness, and even day-to-day propriety in Islamic cultures are based on the example of Mohammed. Though Islamic literature praises Mohammed as a man of peace, he was also a military leader. In 624 AD, The Prophet announced the concept of the Jihad--the holy war. He said in the blessed book, The Koran, "I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them. ...And slay them wherever ye catch them...." In the next nine years, the man of peace ordered a minimum of 27 military campaigns. He personally led nine of them.

 

It is not surprising that Moslem jurists would later declare that there are two worlds: the world of Islam--Dar al-Islam--and the non-Islamic world--Dar al-Harb. These two territorial spheres, explained the Moslem scholars, are in a state of perpetual war. According to some Koranic interpreters, any leader who fails to "make wide slaughter" in the land of the infidel is committing a sin. A statesman is only allowed the temporary expedient of peace if his forces are not yet strong enough to win.

 

This may explain why Elias Canetti, in his Nobel Prize-winning book Crowds and Power, calls Islam a killer religion, literally "a Religion of War."

 

 

 

 

In reality, Islam, like most other religions, has both its positive and its negative sides. It imposes a host of admirable responsibilities on its adherents: for example, zakat, the presentation of regular, substantial contributions to the poor. Allah also demands that his followers "give glad tidings to those who believe and work righteousness,cover not Truth with falsehood nor conceal the Truth when ye know (what it is)," and "treat with kindness your parents and kindred and orphans and those in need."

 

However, Allah issues many a darker order as well. And the percentage of modern Islamic adherents who have focused on Allah's calls to combat is dismaying. Today, the descendants of the Persians who fought the Greeks in 480 BC are devout Moslems. In the '30s, one of them labored diligently to become an Islamic scholar. He pored over the Koran for years. As he demonstrated his superior knowledge of Allah's pronouncements, he rose in the ranks of Iranian holy men. Finally he achieved the penultimate title--ayatollah (roughly equivalent to a Catholic cardinal).

 

His name was Ruhollah Khomeini, and he wrote books, pamphlets, and even taped and distributed his speeches to inspire the citizens of Iran with sacred virtue. The ayatollah's words roused Iranians to overthrow the shah and usher in a government based on strict Islamic doctrine. What did the ayatollah's pronouncements say- Among other things, that infidels are like dogs. Their existence is an affront to Allah.

 

Here's how the ayatollah himself put it: "...Moslems have no alternative... to an armed holy war against profane governments. ...Holy war means the conquest of all non-Moslem territories. ...It will ...be the duty of every able-bodied adult male to volunteer for this war of conquest, the final aim of which is to put Koranic law in power from one end of the earth to the other. "The leaders of the USSR and of England and the president of the United States are ...infidels.... ...Every part of the body of a non-Moslem individual is impure, even the hair on his head and his body hair, his nails, and all the secretions of his body. Any man or woman who denies the existence of God, or believes in His partners [the Christian Trinity], or else does not believe in His Prophet Mohammed, is impure (in the same way as are excrement, urine, dog, and wine)[sic]."

 

Concluded the Ayatollah, "Islam does not allow peace between... a Moslem and an infidel." Though many of us imagine that the promotion of harmony is a prime objective of every major world faith, the ayatollah disagreed. "The leaders of our religion were all soldiers, commanders and warriors," he wrote, "...they killed and they were killed."

 

The concept of a peaceful prophet was so alien to the ayatollah that he was convinced Christ's message had been deliberately distorted by Westerners. Said Khomeini, "This idea of turning the other cheek has been wrongly attributed to Jesus (peace be unto him); it is those barbaric imperialists that have attributed it to him. Jesus was a prophet, and no prophet can be so illogical."

 

Khomeini's dicta may seem irrelevant now that he has long been dead, but his words have actually gained in influence since his demise. Early in the '90s, Iraq's humiliation in the Gulf War undermined the credibility of the secular Moslem regimes, leaving a power vacuum into which Fundamentalism leaped. There are currently roughly 100,000,000 Islamic fundamentalists (rechristened "Islamic revivalists" by some scholars ).

 

Activists among them, employing the slogan "Africa for Islam," are making diligent--and often violent--efforts to seize power in numerous sub-Saharan states. They have gained sufficient favor with South Africa's ANC that Nelson Mandela, in a 1992 visit to Teheran, told the Iranians that Africa must be reshaped along the lines of the Iranian revolution. (Ironically, when South African leader Bishop Desmond Tutu gave a speech to a Palestinian crowd in 1989 lauding Palestinian interests, he failed to realize that the Arabic banners carried by his listeners read "On Saturday We Will Kill the Jews, on Sunday We Will Kill the Christians!")

 

Khomeini-style fundamentalists have become vigorous political forces in areas like China's Sinkiang region (where as of 1994, Beijing officials were seriously concerned that the area's inhabitants, influenced by propaganda from Iran, would attempt to break away and found a fundamentalist Islamic republic).

 

Islamic fundamentalists have been involved in the Indian state of Kashmir's vicious civil war. They've been active in Malaysia, Thailand (where Moslem guerilla forces were fighting in 1993), and the Sudan (where an Iranian-backed fundamentalist regime is engaged in a campaign to subjugate, exterminate or--according to the United Nations International Labor Organization--literally enslave the black Christians and animists in the southern region of the country).

 

Followers of Khomeini have been moving aggressively in Algeria, Jordan, Tunisia, Lebanon, Kuwait, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan (where by 1992 posters and portraits of the ayatollah had become a particularly strong sales item in local stores), France, and, according to Greek Defense Minister Ioannis Varitsiotes and the University of Belgrade's Dragoljub R. Zivojinovic, Czechoslovakia, Albania and Yugoslavia.

 

In many of these cases, fundamentalists are sweeping elections, manipulating generals, funding insurrections, sponsoring terrorism, or actually taking control. Islamic fundamentalists have poured money into America's black communities in an effort that has brought more than a million U.S. African Americans over to the one true faith.

 

While most of these converts remain peaceful, Al-Fuqra, a predominantly African-American Islamic group under the leadership of Pakistani Sheikh Mubarak Ali Jilani Hashemi, has declared a jihad in North America, and, according to law enforcement agencies, has been involved in bombings, murders and other forms of bloodshed in Colorado, Arizona, Pennsylvania and Canada.

 

It has been reported that Al-Fuqra also had a hand in the 1993 effort to blow up New York's United Nations building, the city's FBI headquarters, and its Holland and Lincoln Tunnels. When the Iranians declared a death-sentence on British author Salman Rushdie, black American imams everywhere from Brooklyn to Los Angeles enthusiastically supported the move. (So did the Moslem head of UCLA's Middle Eastern Studies Department.)

 

Even a loyal African-American Gulf War veteran, won over to Allah in 1991, stated after his change in faith that "soon it [islam] will take over all of America, then the world."

 

The U.S. African-American community is only a beachhead. Islamic forces have been attempting to gain control of U.S. media outlets in the hope of using them as propaganda tools for the Moslem point of view. The Saudis and America's Christian fundamentalists battled in the early '90s for the right to purchase America's second largest wire service, UPI. Ultimately, the Arabs won.

 

In addition, Amal Adam, the former head of Saudi Arabia's equivalent of the CIA, was the primary backer of a British-based firm called Capcom, whose chief officers were the heads of TCI (Telecommunications Incorporated), America's largest player in the cable television game. In 1993, TCI made headlines when it came within a hair's breadth of merging with Bell/Atlantic. Had the effort succeeded, it would have formed what financial analysts universally heralded as one of the giants of the coming interactive media revolution, giving the Saudis additional leverage for American media manipulation.

 

The ground is ripe for worldwide Islamic fundamentalist expansion. Mohammedanism is currently the fastest-growing religion on the planet. There are a billion Moslems--as many as Jews and Christians combined--and that number is increasing daily. According to Cairo University's Professor Ali Dessouki , 50 countries are now Islamic.

 

What's more, there are massive Mohammedan populations everywhere from Nigeria to Mongolia, the former Soviet Central Asian republics, Southeast Asia, and the Philippines. The countries with the world's largest Islamic bodies of citizenry are not even parts of the Arab world--they are Indonesia and China.

 

To top it off, Islamic public opinion, if the Arabs, Iranians and Pakistanis are an accurate barometer, is virulently anti-American.

 

Today's Islam extremism is the perfect example of a meme grown ravenous. Saddam Hussein, in his 1990 drive for expansion, claimed to be following Allah's message. The late General Mohammad Zia ul-Haq, former head of Pakistan, who masterminded the fundamentalist-led Afghan resistance efforts using U.S. funds, kept a map in his office with all Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Soviet Central Asia marked in green. It was the symbol of his ultimate ambition--unified Moslem rule extending through every green-marked territory.

 

In 1990, one enthusiastic Turkish official, minister of state Ercument Konukman, noted the substantial Turkish populations in the former Soviet Union and China, and looked forward to uniting them "under the colors of the Turkish flag."

 

A fundamentalist clergyman in Lebanon says, "Don't believe that we want an Islamic republic in Lebanon. ...What Hezbollah wants is a world Islamic republic."

 

Cairo constitutional lawyer Dr. A.K. Aboulmagd adds, "I even venture sometimes to say that Islam was not meant to serve the early days of Islam, when life was primitive and when social institutions were still stable and working. It was...meant to be put in a freezer and to be taken out when it will be really needed. And I believe that the time has come. ...The mission of Islam lies not in the past, but in the future."

 

Dr. Abd El Sabour Shahin of Cairo goes a step further and warns that Western civilization makes a big mistake when it "thinks it will endlessly remain dominant."

 

 

 

Even secular Moslem intellectuals teaching in the top universities of the United States and Europe have joined the expansionist bandwagon, calling for a leader who will pull world Islam together into an unstoppable force. "Islam will... take over the world," said an Egyptian in Cairo in the late '80s to a crew from Britain's Granada tv.

 

No isolated, gray-haired zealot, he was one of a new breed of young university graduates, members of the middle class, and professionals, often among the highest achievers in their region. These religious devotees do not have a happy fate in store for those of us in the west. Explained the young Egyptian, "Islam is a tree that feeds on blood and grows on severed limbs."

 

In the early and mid-nineties, a spate of books and articles appeared proclaiming that, despite such rhetoric, Islam poses no geopolitical danger. Abul Aziz Said, of the School of International Service at American University, said point blank that "Islamic fundamentalism is not the enemy of the west.Islamic fundamentalism," he declared, "is a defensive social and political movement, a reaction to westernization and modernization." It is, he insisted, "an attempt to restore an old civilization, not create a new empire."

 

Yet, later in his article, Said said that ancient imperial triumphs were at the heart of the "world influence" fundamentalists were legitimately attempting to "regain." And the veil slipped a bit from his true feelings when, zeroing in on his conclusion, he declared that "imitative responses of Muslims to the challenge of the West...evince...identification with the 'enemy.'"

 

John L. Esposito, former president of the Middle East Studies Association, criticized "the creation of an imagined monolithic Islam" and contended that those apprehensive about fundamentalism "fail to account for the diversity of Muslim practice." Palestinian-born Columbia University scholar Edward Said echoed the assertion that diversity renders the notion of an Islamic threat, in Said's word, "phony."

 

However, diversity within a cultural community does not necessarily halt its expansionist drive. The European West spread its often brutal control over every continent while so divided and "diverse" that it was engaged in an almost nonstop series of internecine wars. And early Islam conquered a territory almost equally vast while its leaders squabbled and fought, and its religious sects were rent by schism.

 

Esposito, like many other writers on the topic, justifies the ferocity of anti-western Islamic sentiments by reminding us that "many in the Arab and Muslim world view the history of Islam and of the Muslim world's dealings with the West as one of victimization and oppression at the hands of an expansive imperial power."

 

There's no question he is right. However the Islamic world held the upper hand in the struggle between the Occident and the Levant for over 1,100 years. The West managed to turn the tables briefly when the Crusaders established a short-lived middle eastern toehold.

 

The Crusader states were not planted on undisputed Moslem land. The heartland of the Islamic empire, the section bordering the Mediterranean rim, was a deeply Christian area, a vital spiritual and economic core of a "Western" imperium which, for over six hundred years before Mohammed's birth, had included the non-Arab provinces of Turkey (known then as Asia, Galatia, Bithynia, Pontus and Cappadocia--where St. Paul established many of the first churches), Syria (whose city of Damascus was one of the earliest major Christian centers), Israel (homeland to the Jews since roughly 1,200 B.C., and, despite Roman efforts to expel the native population, still dotted with Hebrew villages when the Moslems arrived sword in hand), Egypt (populated at the time by rabidly Christian descendants of the pyramid-builders, along with significant numbers of Greeks and Jews), Libya (the former Cyrenaica), Tunisia (Carthage and its environs, where St. Augustine was born and eventually became bishop of Hippo), and Northern Algeria and Morocco (then called Mauritania).

 

These were the countries that had produced the Bible, the Christian monastic movement (born in Egypt), St. Jerome's conversion (in what is now Turkey), St. John of Damascus, the famed early church historian Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea, Origen, Saint Athanasius, the Aryan heresy, a significant number of fathers of the Roman Catholic faith and the Eastern Orthodox creed. The knights of the cross did not retain their reconquered kingdoms long. They took Jerusalem in 1099 and were expelled by 1187.

 

Nonetheless, according to historian Amin Maalouf, the author of The Crusades Through Arab Eyes, modern Arabs tend to see today's world events as a continuation of the Crusades.

 

For 600 years after the fall of the Crusader states, Islamic forces returned to the attack, capturing Greece and chunks of Eastern Europe, raiding towns in Sicily and the Italian coasts for goods and slaves, preying on Mediterranean shipping, chaining Europeans like Miguel Cervantes to the oars of their galleys, and until 1826 forcing the Christian citizens of Yugoslavia and Albania to give up their children to Moslem overlords (who brought up the males on the Koran, then turned them into soldiers known as Janissaries).

 

It wasn't until 1798 that Napoleon began to shift the balance between East and West again when he briefly invaded Egypt, from which he was ignominiously expelled by the British and the Turks. But the heavy-handed fertile crescent "imperialism" so resented by the Arabs didn't begin until after the First World War, and it lasted less than 40 years.

 

Southern Spain remained under the Moslem yoke for 781 years, Greece for 381, and pieces of longtime Christian terrain like St. Augustine's North African homeland and the religious and secular capital that eventually eclipsed Rome in power and splendor--Byzantium--are still in Moslem hands today.

 

Syria, on the other hand, was only under western control for 21 years, Egypt for 67, and Iraq a mere 15.

 

If one accepts Esposito's reasoning, Westerners--who were bludgeoned by "an expansive imperial" Islam for well over a millennium--have more right to fear an Islamic revival than Moslems have to hate the West. More to the point, Phebe Marr, of the National Defense University's Institute for Strategic Studies, contends that militant extremist groups dedicated to violence and an absolute rejection of the West are small. In addition, she claims, "The radicals do not have a broad base of popular support. ...Even in Lebanon, however, where such groups flourish, a poll of university students taken in 1987 indicated that more than 90% disapproved of...assassinations, hostage taking, and sabotage of government installations."

 

On the other hand, Marr admits that "there may be only a thin line between the open, mainstream movements and their clandestine [violent] counterparts." She concludes that "the Islamic revival is not only here to stay but is likely to be a leading domestic political force shaping the Mediterranean region during the coming decades. Despite political vicissitudes, the various movements loosely collected under the rubric of 'Islamic Fundamentalism' have shown a staying power that indicates they have achieved both breadth and depth in their indigenous societies."

 

Like Marr, Abbas Hamdani, professor of Middle Eastern history at the University of Wisconsin, asserts that "to propose a monolithic view of Islam and then equate it with fundamentalism would be wrong.... Except for mass followings in Algeria and Tunisia, fundamentalists represent a small segment, although a popular, vocal, and highly motivated one, of the total population. [Hamdani overlooks the Sudan and Afghanistan, both of which, at this writing, were in fundamentalist hands.] Even in Iran, which appears to be totally convulsed in fundamentalism, it is a small minority that has monopolized power." As the case of Iran demonstrates, it only takes a minority to seize control of a country, especially if that minority is enthusiastic about using violence.

 

In Germany's July, 1932, elections, 63% of the voters cast their ballots against the Nazis. By the November elections, the anti-Nazi vote was even larger. Yet Adolf Hitler was able to achieve dictatorial power only four months later on March 23, 1933, in part because his storm troopers--like the militant gangs controlled by the fundamentalists--were willing to murder their opponents.

 

Khomeini's works advocate vigorously converting or murdering all those who do not embrace Allah's holy meme. Then they urge a holy war on the nations of the West.

 

The ayatollah wrote, "Any nonreligious [i.e. non-Islamic] power, whatever form or shape, is necessarily an atheistic power, the tool of Satan; it is part of our duty to stand in its path and to struggle against its effects. Such Satanic power can engender nothing but corruption on earth, the supreme evil which must be pitilessly fought and rooted out. To achieve that end, we have no recourse other than to overthrow all governments that do not rest on pure Islamic principles, and are thus corrupt and corrupting, and to tear down the traitorous, rotten, unjust, and tyrannical administrative systems that serve them.... If Islamic civilization had governed the West, we would no longer have to put up with these barbaric goings-on unworthy even of wild animals....[Western governments are] using inhuman laws and inhuman political methods... Misdeeds must be punished by the law of retaliation: cut off the hands of the thief; kill the murderer instead of putting him in prison; flog the adulterous woman or man. Your concerns, your 'humanitarian' scruples, are more childish than reasonable."

 

Khomeini had a prescription for such problems: "All of humanity must strike these troublemakers [the governments of the West] with an iron hand.... Islam has obliterated many tribes because they were sources of corruption [i.e. sources of non-Islamic influence]...." Judging from the Ayatollah's rhetoric, the next tribes he would have liked to see obliterated were those in Europe and America.

 

Allah is rapidly providing Khomeini's followers with a sword to carry out their master's wishes. He has offered Islam the fire in which the Koran says those who follow false faiths are destined to burn: nuclear weaponry. He has also provided the long range missiles needed to use it. According to the late imam's logic, there may be only one just and righteous thing to do: employ this technology to wipe out recalcitrant heathens like you and me.

 

The modern growth of Islam is the coalescence of a superorganism drawn together by the magnetic attraction of a meme. But this meme has an advantage: The social body it is trying to pull together has existed as a unified social beast in the past. The old reflexes of solidarity are still there, waiting to be aroused.

 

The meme of the new Islam is not laboring to generate a small and fragile embryo. It is simply attempting to awaken a sleeping giant.

 

[krsna 3]

By Barbara J. Stock

 

2006/02/08

 

The Islamic Pandora’s Box has been opened and no amount of energy spent trying to push the true face of Islam back in will be successful. The inherent violence, intolerance, and inbred anger of Islam is now out for all to see. The world is watching and the “handful of terrorists who have high-jacked a peaceful religion” doesn’t pass the “laugh test” any longer.

 

An Islamic mob of over 500 marched through the streets of Knightsbridge , England , chanting, “Massacre those who insult Islam!” and issued warnings of further terror attacks by screaming, " Britain , you will pay, 7/7 on its way." Embassies have been burned. Nearly 50,000 Muslims took to the streets in Sudan chanting, “"We are ready to die in defense of you our beloved prophet." A Catholic priest has been killed, and churches burned. These people are not “terrorists,” but supposedly the average peace-loving Muslim. It doesn’t seem take much to turn a “peaceful” Muslim into a rampaging killer.

 

All of this chaos and destruction is over a few editorial cartoons.

 

The threats of kidnappings, riots, and boycotts are coming from Muslims all over the world. Diplomatic action against Denmark has been recommended by the Egyptian ambassador. Muslims in Norway are trying to pass laws that anything short of praise for Islam should be considered blasphemy and severely punished. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) felt it had the right to dictate to the president of the United States concerning which terms would be acceptable when referring to Islam in the State of the Union Address.

 

Islamic hysteria is in full voice to bend the world to Islam’s will. Of course, Islam never considers as blasphemy the daily insults to Jews or Christians. Papers all over the Middle East and on the Islamic web sites display cartoons depicting Jews and Christians as pigs and monkeys and as murderous infidels butchering children with swords in the shape of a swastika. Cartoons showing the attack on America on 9/11 are very popular. Apparently, the death of 3000 people is not something Islam finds offensive.

 

Muslims lose touch with reality after being brought to a fever pitch by the imams and mullahs, especially during Friday prayers. Men often explode out of the mosque looking for someone to kill to ease their Islamic rage against an infidel world. Muslims feel Islam has been slighted and the world must pay. If these raging Muslims can’t find the guilty person to punish, any non-Muslim in their path will do.

 

What constitutes an insult to Islam? Basically, any non-Muslim is an insult to Islam. If someone does not believe that Mohammed was a prophet, that is considered an insult in Islam. Uttering any doubts that the Quran is not a perfect book written by God through Mohammed, is considered an insult to Islam. Depicting any picture of Mohammed is considered an insult to Islam. It doesn’t take much to trigger mass hysteria and Islamic mobs screaming, “Death to the world.”

 

The artists who made the editorial cartoons that have set off this hate-fest are now in hiding, fearing that they will end up as Theo Van Gogh who had his throat slit and a knife left sticking out of his chest on a public street in broad daylight. Islam will not forget. These cartoonists are now dead-men-walking and they know that carefree walks in park are now a thing of the past.

 

An interesting twist is that a Jordanian newspaper also published the cartoons and the editor was promptly arrested. Mr. Momani stated that he wanted Muslims to stop and think about how the world is now viewing Islam. The poor man asked the leaders of Islam to be reasonable. As a Muslim himself, he should have known better. This brave editor pleaded: "What brings more prejudice against Islam, these caricatures or pictures of a hostage-taker slashing the throat of his victim in front of the cameras or a suicide bomber who blows himself up during a wedding ceremony in Amman ?"

 

As a Muslim, Mr. Momani should have realized that in the eyes of Islam the beheaders and bombers are heroes who praise Allah with their good work. But a cartoon with Mohammed claiming paradise is running out of virgins is an unforgivable sin. Butchers of innocent hostages are held in high esteem in Islam but a leader in the new Hamas government of the Palestinians had this to say to an Italian paper about the cartoons: “The cartoonists should be punished by death.”

 

Let’s summarize. Slit a man’s throat in the name of Allah for no reason at all—good work and Allah is pleased. Draw a cartoon about Islam—this is punishable by death. That, in a nutshell, is Islam.

 

The Syrian government has claimed that all the destruction could have been avoided if the Danish government had apologized for the terrible sin against Islam. While the paper that originally publish the cartoons has done just that, the Danish government refuses to cave in to Islamic threats. Nor should they.

 

In truth, no one should cower because of Islamic threats. The Danes have done nothing to apologize for and should stand their ground as should all the countries who have published the cartoons. In fact, The Danes and every country around the world should continue to publish them to show the world’s solidarity against Islam and for freedom of speech. Sooner or later, the daily staged rage-riots will exhaust Islam and force it to realize that Islam does not give orders to the world.

 

If there is anything good to come from all of the fury Islamics have put on full display for the world, it is that passive people, especially those in Europe , have now been witness to true Islam. We have all seen the terrorist arm of Islam while the gullible continued to cling to the idea that Islam is peaceful and accepting and tolerant. It is none of those things. Islam demands acceptance while accepting nothing. Islam demands tolerance while giving none. Islam claims it only wants peace in the world while starting wars and rioting and killing at the slightest perceived insult. Horrified Islamic religious leaders will attempt to downplay the violence knowing Islam has exposed its hateful nature, but it is too late.

 

At last, true Islam has shown its face to the world, and this time the world was watching.

 

 

[gHari 0]

 

Where?