Tuesday, May 23, 2006

  Posted by Picasa

Islam will be defeated. Islam will fall, like communism fell.

Defeating Islam 
By Ali Sina 

2006/05/23

In one of my articles I wrote:  

Quote:


I promise that if we continue this campaign of discrediting Islam and Muslim scholars, in no more than a quarter of century, Islam will be defeated. Islam will fall, like communism fell. Mark my words today, even if you think I am nuts. If we all work together, especially the ex-Muslims, we can get rid of Islam sooner than anyone can imagine. Iran is already anti Islamic. More than half of Iranians do not call themselves Muslims anymore.

We are demolishing Islam from its foundation. The edifice seems to be intact. But don't let appearances deceive you. This high tower of lies will come down at once.




One friend was skeptical about my confidence and wrote:  

Dr. sina, I am sorry that I am wasting your valuable time. But one thought recently just killing me. You said that you can eradicate Islam with this campaign within few decades.

But sir, are you very sure about this? A die-hard religion, which is of 1400 years old can be destroyed within decades, how, really it is possible. You talked about exponential series. It’s ok, but everything, particularly, stupidity about religion does not follow math.

I read all your articles, again and again. I strongly believe you are not that kind of person who talks big just to stay on the limelight. I have spent about 10 months with FFI, sent "a letter to mankind" to more than 4 thousands people (the number is growing everyday) and entered many forums with different name to post the letter but now i am in doubt. How can you achieve your goal? How is it possible, just tell me.

You said "if we all work together", if you have to use the word "if", then how can you promise. How can you be so sure?

Dr. sina, as the requirement of my profession, I have come in contact with many different types of persons of different nationalities (and mentalities) in my life. I can estimate a person by talking to him (and reading the literature produced by him). I am sure, you are very confident that you will be able to destroy Islam. But what is that “secret" you know, but you are not telling us, which makes you so confident.

Can you please spend some time and give me a reply whenever you get time. I will wait, no problem, but please clarify my doubts.  

antiterrorism

 


Here is my response:  

Dear Antiterrorism:  

Let me clarify one misunderstanding in the outset. I have not claimed that “I” will eradicate Islam. I am not a megalomaniac fruitcake with thoughts of grandiosity. I am just a humble guy. Just ask my cat. This little fellow who lives with me and knows me well does not pay any attention to me. In fact he treats me as if I am his servant. Now if this is the opinion of a cat about me, you can imagine how insignificant I must be.     

I said WE can eradicate Islam if we work at it together and in this I am confident. Where this confidence comes from? I am confident because I know Islam. Islam is nothing but puff and pomposity. It is 1400 years old and it has 1.2 billion followers. Nonetheless it is based on lies. It’s like a tall high-rise built on moving sand. As long as those sands remain in place the edifice will stand on its feet. But as soon as you disturb the sand or remove it from its beneath, the edifice will come down crumbling.   

Islam is a lie. Its god is a lie and its prophet was a liar. He was not just a liar but also an extremely evil man. Many consider Christ to be a myth and Christianity a fairytale. Although I am certain that someone called Jesus must have existed and a lot of what is attributed to him are true, I have no doubt that much of Christianity is fairytale. The stories of virgin birth, walking on water, converting water to wine or resurrection and ascension are for the feeble in mind. The early believers must have added these stories to, as we say today, “sex up” their religion and make it look attractive. Simpleminded people like to believe in fairytales. This was more so in the past when the average man was illiterate and unsophisticated. But putting aside all the fairytales, the essence of Christianity is not bad. It teaches love and forgiveness. Today, many psychologists, self-help gurus and motivational speakers, will tell you the same thing. You must learn to give up your selfishness, see beauty in everything, and love. Love your neighbor, love your fellow being, love yourself, love the world, and learn to forgive – not only forgive others, but also forgive your self.  

Once you strip Christianity from all the fairytales and superstitions, and separate it from the actions of the Church, you see that it’s is a good teaching. There was this young man who perhaps was a bit eccentric and maybe, like yours truly, a bit too soon became angry at the stupidity of the people and lashed out at them. But despite his human flaws, what he taught was not evil. He was a Rabbi. He called himself the son of God, the way I call myself the son of Universe. It does not seem that with this he intended to establish for himself a rank above others. In his view everyone was a child of God. Later his followers, out of love, attributed miracles to him and elevated his rank to God. Once you separate facts from fiction and what the Christians added to Christianity you find the essence of Christianity is love.  

What will remain of Islam once you separate facts from fiction? Once you discard the ridiculous claim of splitting the moon and climbing to the seventh heaven to bargain with Allah about the number of prayer that Muslims should say during the day and other stupidities like these, you’ll find Islam is nothing but hate, violence, and terror. The psychopath narcissist does not understand love. He understands fear. Islam is based on fear.  

Then when you compare the life of Muhammad with that of Jesus, you’ll see that there is no comparison. One was the paragon of goodness while the other was the embodiment of evil. This is not comparing apples to oranges; we are talking of two opposite poles.  

With all this consideration, it is clear why it is a mistake to compare Islam to Christianity. Just because Christianity has withstood criticism, it does not mean Islam will also survive criticism.  

There is some good in Christianity, which makes it worth to preserve. Even as an atheist and a rationalist, I can put aside the superstitions surrounding Christianity and appreciate its beauty and its spiritual teachings. I often quote the teachings of Christ, not because of his “authority” but because they are good teachings. “Love thy neighbor”, “forgive the sins of others so yours can be forgiven too”, "You were told not to sin, I tell you not to think of sin for the sin is committed in your mind", “Let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone”, “Only truth can set you free”, and many more. These are good teachings. Mankind will benefit from them. The world will be a better place once these teachings are taken to heart.  

Most other religions, like Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, Bahaism, etc. are mixed bags of good and bad. You can compare them to ore. There is lots of dirt but in the midst of that dirt, there are gems and precious metals.  

There is nothing good in Islam. Islam is sheer evil that is sustained by fear. Not only the teachings of Islam are evil, Muhammad was a monster. You cannot say this about the founders of any other major religion. Muhammad was more evil than most cult leaders. He can be compared to Shoko Asahara and Charles Manson. So as you see, there is a fundamental difference between Islam and other religions.
But Islam is a different story. Islam is not a religion but a political movement in the guise of religion. Islam promises afterlife to rouse the foolhardy followers to wage war, kill and get killed cheerfully and advance the megalomaniac ambitions of grandeur of a psychopath. It is easy to defeat Islam. All we have to do is tell the truth. All we have to do is expose its foundation, remove those sands of lies from beneath it and it will fall on its own. Christianity and other religions are rooted in something good. The foundations of these religions are solid. But Islam does not have any foundation. It is based on sheer lies and unadulterated evil.   Muslims know that Islam will fall if exposed. On a subconscious level Muslims know that Islam is a lie and that it cannot be defended logically. That is why when you criticize Islam they panic. You can criticize all other religions, but all you can do is destroy their superstitions and fallacies. The foundation of these religions remains intact. As a matter of fact these religions have benefited immensely from criticism and thanks to that they were forced to give up most of their absurd tenets. They have adapted to the changing world.  The evil practices of Sati in Hinduism, stoning in Judaism and inquisition in Christianity are things of the past.   But you can’t criticize Islam. If you tamper with the sands beneath it, the whole edifice will fall. Muslims know that. They know that Islam can’t take criticism and that it is very fragile. That is why they are so protective of it. That is why they become hysteric when a few cartoons are drawn depicting Muhammad. That is why they killed Theo Van Gogh and threaten to kill anyone who attempts to remove those sands of lies on which Islam stands.   Other religions are plastic. They are like living trees. You can prune them and shape them and they become better.

Islam is dead. It is like a fossil. It can’t change. If you touch it, it breaks. You can't remove a single thing from Islam without destroying completely. It's a house of cards. Remove one lie and the whole thing will come down.   You may ask: “if Muslims know that Islam is a lie why they defend it”? That is a fair question. The answer is that this lie is all they have.

They have to cling to and believe in it even though it is clear to them that Muhammad was an evil man and whatever he said were lies. This lie is their only straw.   Muhammad was a psychopath. Psychopaths want to control others. The first thing they do is they destroy the selfhood of their victims. Thanks to Islam, Muslims have no pride, no self esteem, no dignity, no honor. Such a people are often very dangerous. Lack of self esteem is the cause of all evils.   People who respect themselves and know of their own worth and dignity, do not commit crime. They do not hurt others. You can measure goodness in people by their self esteem. The higher is their self-esteem the better human beings, the more caring, the more helpful and the more reliable they become. The lower is the self-esteem the more cunning, the more callous and the more selfish they become.  

This is what makes Muslims so evil. It’s their lack of self-esteem. They are ruthless and exploitative on the outside, but that is to cover their inner insecurity and lack of self confidence. They are unhappy, fearful and walking scar tissues.  Muslims are bullies. Some researches have erroneously concluded that bullies suffer from unearned high self-esteem. But there is no such thing as high self-esteem. We have pomposity, hauteur, pretentiousness and vain glory. These are the flipside of low self-esteem. People who lack self-esteem wear these masks to hide their belittled and humiliated selves.   M

uhammad led his followers to deny their self worth. They are made to believe that without Islam they are nothing. They are even made to despise their own ancestral cultures and civilization. The narcissist has to destroy the selfhood of his victims in order to make them completely dependant.   Muslims are not fool. They can see Islam is false. They realize it is against human intelligence and that it makes no sense, but they are so much trapped in it that they can’t leave it. They force themselves to believe, because without it they are lost.   One Muslim wrote to me “Apparently some of the verses may seem or sound bad or barbaric. But it is Satan who is making us see them this way.” This explains the Islamic pathology. Muslims see that Islam is foolish, but they can’t let go. They can’t let go because they have nothing else to cling on. Muhammad robbed their identity and destroyed their selfhood. They must cling to Islam, even though they can clearly see that it is false because Islam is the only thing they have. It is the only straw in an ocean of uncertainties.   They need constant reassurance and repeat to themselves that "Islam is a beautiful religion" and that "Muhammad was the perfect human". They even seek these reassurances from others. The collect the the complimentary comments of non-Muslims (particularly Whites, because they think White people are superior) and even lobby politicians and political institutions to issue official statements recognizing Islam as a "great religion". Talk about insecurity. And then there is the fear – the fear of Hell and the punishment in the grave that has been inculcated in their minds since childhood. This fear has paralyzed their thinking ability. They dismiss any doubt as soon as it comes to their minds




 
http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina60523.htm

Monday, May 22, 2006

The main theme of jihad is the murdering of Christians and Jews

Do muslims like hatred and death???

Former Muslim: "The main theme of jihad is the murdering of Christians and Jews"
www.jihadwatch.org & www.sermonaudio.com ^ | Pastor Mujahid el-Masih



Is Islam a Religion of Peace?



A Christian Understanding of Islam By Pastor Mujahid-El-Masih Ph.D

Former Muslim: "The main theme of jihad is the murdering of Christians and Jews"

A former Muslim spoke at the Ridge Southern Baptist Church on Sunday evening to explain the "True Under-standing of Islam." Pastor Mujahid el-Masih had been Muslim for 14 years before he converted to Christianity in his native country of Pakistan.


"The best source of the truth of Islam is the Quran," el-Masih said. The speech was peppered with anecdotes and references were cited from the Quran through out the lecture, as well as the resounding "Amen" when the energy of the congregation seemed to lull.

He also asked that his picture not be taken due to the fact that he still had Christian family members in Pakistan, which is predominately Muslim.

First and foremost, el-Masih refuted any claims that Islam was a peaceful religion.

"The main theme of jihad is the murdering of Christians and Jews," el-Masih said....


Any arguments such as passages in the Quran of tolerance for other religions were also quickly dismissed by el-Masih. He claimed that Mohammad had said the passages of tolerance before Muslims started having any clout. Once the Muslims gained some power, they rejected the idea of tolerance for other religions in favor of conquering a nation and telling them to either convert to Islam, pay a tax or be put to death.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/003951.php

Sunday, May 21, 2006

supremicism breeds contempt for the helpless

supremicism breeds contempt for the helpless

Christian boys saved from Islamist slavers in Pakistan
Judeoscope ^ | 21 May 2006 | Marie Colvin

A SENIOR member of an Islamic organisation linked to Al-Qaeda is funding his activities through the kidnapping of Christian children who are sold into slavery in Pakistan.

The Sunday Times has established that Gul Khan, a wealthy militant who uses the base of Jamaat-ud Daawa (JUD) near Lahore, is behind a cruel trade in boys aged six to 12.

They are abducted from remote Christian villages in the Punjab and fetch nearly £1,000 each from buyers who consign them to a life of misery in domestic servitude or in the sex trade.

Khan was exposed in a sting organised by American and Pakistani missionaries who decided to save 20 such boys and return them to their homes. Using a secret camera, they filmed him accepting $28,500 (£15,000) from a Pakistani missionary posing as a businessman who said he wanted to set up an operation in which the boys would beg for cash on the streets. Note: Because authorities fear the Jamaat-ud Daawa, a powerful and popular group because of its social services (the same tactic used by Islamist radicals such as the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and Hezbollah) no investigation or charges have been brought against Gul Khan.

http://www.judeoscope.ca/breve.php3?id_breve=1536

Saturday, May 20, 2006

The decision on immigration belongs to the people.

The decision on immigration is too important to leave to the politicians who have enormous pressures on them.

The decision on immigration belongs to the people.

The people MUST vote on this.
IMO Bush should halt all immigration and all citizenship, and call for a nation wide vote.

An issue this important should not be demagogued by politicians for political advantage.

There are enormous pressures on politicians of both parties.

Friday, May 19, 2006

As Deathsquads Stalk Iraq, Middle-Class Exodus Begins

The foundation for a successful society is a thriving middle class


As Death Stalks Iraq, Middle-Class Exodus Begins

Christoph Bangert/Polaris, for The New York Times
BAGHDAD, Iraq, May 18 — Deaths run like water through the life of the Bahjat family. Four neighbors. A barber. Three grocers. Two men who ran a currency exchange shop.

But when six armed men stormed into their sons' primary school this month, shot a guard dead, and left fliers ordering it to close, Assad Bahjat knew it was time to leave.

"The main thing now is to just get out of Iraq," said Mr. Bahjat, standing in a room heaped with suitcases and bedroom furniture in eastern Baghdad.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/19/world/middleeast/19migration.html?ex=1148184000&en=33348895c1569220&ei=5087%0A

Forced religious garb and islamic fascism go hand in hand

Forced religious garb and islamic fascism go hand in hand: It's one thing to dress religiously for services and then dress as you please in public life, it's another thing to force religious garb under threat of death.

Iran eyes badges for Jews

Law would require non-Muslim insignia

Chris Wattie, National PostPublished: Friday, May 19, 2006
Human rights groups are raising alarms over a new law passed by the Iranian parliament that would require the country's Jews and Christians to wear coloured badges to identify them and other religious minorities as non-Muslims.

"This is reminiscent of the Holocaust," said Rabbi Marvin Hier, the dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles. "Iran is moving closer and closer to the ideology of the Nazis."

Iranian expatriates living in Canada yesterday confirmed reports that the Iranian parliament, called the Islamic Majlis, passed a law this week setting a dress code for all Iranians, requiring them to wear almost identical "standard Islamic garments."

The law, which must still be approved by Iran's "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenehi before being put into effect, also establishes special insignia to be worn by non-Muslims.

Iran's roughly 25,000 Jews would have to sew a yellow strip of cloth on the front of their clothes, while Christians would wear red badges and Zoroastrians would be forced to wear blue cloth.

"There's no reason to believe they won't pass this," said Rabbi Hier. "It will certainly pass unless there's some sort of international outcry over this."

Bernie Farber, the chief executive of the Canadian Jewish Congress, said he was "stunned" by the measure. "We thought this had gone the way of the dodo bird, but clearly in Iran everything old and bad is new again," he said. "It's state-sponsored religious discrimination."

Ali Behroozian, an Iranian exile living in Toronto, said the law could come into force as early as next year.

It would make religious minorities immediately identifiable and allow Muslims to avoid contact with non-Muslims.

Mr. Behroozian said it will make life even more difficult for Iran's small pockets of Jewish, Christian and other religious minorities -- the country is overwhelmingly Shi'ite Muslim. "They have all been persecuted for a while, but these new dress rules are going to make things worse for them," he said.

The new law was drafted two years ago, but was stuck in the Iranian parliament until recently when it was revived at the behest of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

A spokesman for the Iranian Embassy in Ottawa refused to comment on the measures. "This is nothing to do with anything here," said a press secretary who identified himself as Mr. Gharmani.

"We are not here to answer such questions."

The Simon Wiesenthal Centre has written to Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, protesting the Iranian law and calling on the international community to bring pressure on Iran to drop the measure.

"The world should not ignore this," said Rabbi Hier. "The world ignored Hitler for many years -- he was dismissed as a demagogue, they said he'd never come to power -- and we were all wrong."

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=11fbf4a8-282a-4d18-954f-546709b1240f

Religious garb and islamic killing go hand in hand.

Religious garb and islamic killing go hand in hand.
Ban all religious garb in public places.

Mass rally against religious killing

HIDIR GOKTAS IN ANKARA
MORE than 25,000 people marched in defence of secularism in Turkey yesterday, shocked at the killing of a leading judge by an Islamic extremist gunman.

Angry crowds outside the Ankara mosque, where the funeral of the murdered judge Mustafa Ozbilgin was being held, pushed government ministers, who some see as being too religiously minded, on their way inside.


And outside the country's top administrative court, protesters booed Abdullah Gul, the foreign minister, and called for the government's resignation.

Four more people were detained yesterday in connection with the Wednesday killing, when a suspected Islamic lawyer stormed into a chamber of the top court, shooting dead Mr Ozbilgin and injuring four others while shouting he was "a soldier of Allah".

The attack raised tensions between the secular establishment and the religious-minded government and sparked an outpouring of nationalist sentiment in the capital. Judges led thousands of people to Mustafa Kemal Ataturk's mausoleum to pay homage to the republic's founder and show their support for secularism.

The gunman, who was detained shortly after the attack, had apparently targeted the judges because they ruled in February against a woman becoming a headteacher on the grounds that she wore a headscarf on her way to work. Turkey does not allow headscarves to be worn in government buildings and universities.

"We have to rally against the people who brought our country to this point. We're so sorry about this attack and therefore we all want to be on the streets and make our voices heard," said Gumus Ocak, a housewife in Ankara.

Turkey's political leaders, including Tayyip Erdogan, the prime minister, have condemned the attack.

Mr Erdogan and his ruling Justice and Development Party, which has roots in political Islam, had strongly criticised the judges' ruling and called for easing of the headscarf ban. The ban began in the 1980s but dates back to Ataturk, who abolished religious dress in 1926.

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=743802006

Thursday, May 18, 2006

where are the moderates? answer: there are no moderates

Muslim reformer facing lawsuit — from co-religionists

By Jeff Jacoby

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | When Ahmed Mansour learned that a lawsuit had been filed against him by the Islamic Society of Boston, he had one urgent question: "Will they put me in jail?"

The answer was no — in America, people don't go to prison for publicly expressing their views, or for encouraging the government to review questionable public transactions. But Mansour had good reason to worry. He had learned the hard way that Muslim reformers who speak out against Islamist fanaticism and religious dictatorship can indeed end up in prison — or worse. It had happened to him in his native Egypt, which he fled in 2001 after receiving death threats. He was grateful that the United States had granted him asylum, enabling him to go on promoting his vision of a progressive Islam in which human rights and democratic values would be protected. But would he now have to fight in America the same kind of persecution he experienced in Egypt?

Mansour is just one of many people and organizations being sued for defamation by the Islamic Society of Boston, which accuses them all of conspiring to deny freedom of worship to Boston-area Muslims. In fact, the defendants — who include journalists, a terrorism expert, and the founder of the American Anti-Slavery Group, plus the Episcopalian lay minister and the Jewish attorney who together with Mansour formed the interfaith Citizens for Peace and Tolerance in 2004 — appear to be guilty of nothing more than voicing concerns about the ISB's construction of a large mosque in the Boston neighborhood of Roxbury.

More than a few unsettling questions have been raised about the ISB and its mosque project. For example:


Why did city officials provide the land for the mosque for just $175,000, when the parcel was publicly valued at $400,000? And where did that $400,000 figure come from, when the land's market value had earlier been assessed at $2 million?

What is the Islamic Society's relationship to Yusef al-Qaradawi, a radical Islamist who praises suicide terrorism and endorses the killing of Americans in Iraq? For several years the ISB listed him as a trustee, though now it says that was an "administrative oversight." Was it also an oversight when a videotaped message of support from Qaradawi, who is banned from the United States, was played at an ISB fund-raiser in 2002?


After it was reported that another trustee, Walid Fitaihi, had written that Jews are "murderers of the prophets" who will be punished for "oppression, murder, and rape of the worshipers of Allah," why did the ISB drag its heels for seven months before unequivocally repudiating his words?
But if anything should raise eyebrows, it is the decision of the Islamic Society to pursue Mansour for his comments about the ISB at a press conference in 2004. He had gone to pray at the ISB's current mosque in Cambridge, and described at the press conference what he had observed: "I am here to testify that this radical culture is here, inside this society," he said. He had seen "Arabic-language newsletters filled with hatred against the United States." Books and videos in the mosque's library promoted "fanatical beliefs that insult other people's religions." A religious man who prays five times daily, he stressed that he was "not against the mosque. . . . I'm against extremists."





If Mansour doesn't have the credentials to form such opinions, it would be hard to say who does.


He holds three degrees from Cairo's Al-Azhar, the foremost religious university in the Islamic world, where he was appointed a professor of Muslim history in 1980. He would probably be there still if his scholarship hadn't gotten in the way. The deeper Mansour delved into the history of Islam, the clearer it became to him that the faith had been perverted into a "false doctrine of hate" — a doctrine that has been spread across much of the Muslim world and that has fueled great cruelty and bloodshed.


His mounting opposition to Wahhabist radicalism drew the wrath of the powerful Al-Azhar sheiks, who removed him from his classroom and put him on trial in a religious court. For two years, he says, he was pressured to recant. In 1987 he was fired. Then the Egyptian government imprisoned him for two months.


Undeterred, Mansour continued to write and speak out against radical Islam. He has authored 24 books and more than 500 articles, many of them denouncing as heretical any Muslim creeds that "persecute and kill peaceful humans and violate their human rights." The real infidels, he has argued, are those who share "the traits of Osama bin Laden and his followers." Before fleeing for his life, he worked with Egypt's leading human-rights activists, promoting democratic values, funneling assistance to persecuted Christians, and advocating for the reform of religious education.


And this is the Islamic Society of Boston's idea of an anti-Muslim conspirator? Then what, one wonders, is its idea of Islam?

Wednesday, May 17, 2006

Why banning the headscarf would have a huge effect on islamofascists

Why banning the headscarf would have a huge effect on the islamofascists:


Islamic Head Scarves at Issue in Killing of Judge in Turkey


By SEBNEM ARSU
Published: May 18, 2006
ISTANBUL, May 17 — A gunman stormed into a courthouse meeting room in Ankara on Wednesday and shot five judges, apparently in anger at a ruling enforcing a strict ban on the wearing of Islamic head scarves.

The attacker chanted, “Allahu akbar” (God is greatest) and Islamist slogans as he sprayed bullets across the courtroom, wounding five of the six people present before he was arrested by police guards


Russia and the Post-Soviet NationsWide-ranging coverage of Russia and the former Soviet republics, updated by The Times's Moscow bureau.




One judge later died, and top officials, including the prime minister, who himself had criticized the court's ruling, rushed to denounce the attack as a violation of Turkey's secular and democratic traditions.

The gunman, who was captured, is Alparslan Arslan, a lawyer.

He is not known to have previously displayed strong Islamist views, but during the siege, "he presented himself as the soldier of God," said Tansel Colasan, acting chief judge of the highest administrative court, the Council of State, in whose courthouse the shooting took place.

"He reportedly said he was there to punish the court members for their verdicts on the head scarf cases," Judge Colasan told reporters outside the courthouse in Ankara, the capital.

link http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/18/world/europe/18turkey.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Clean up your house and quit whining

Islam is 100 times more likely to be associated with terrorism because it IS constantly butchering others in the name of it's hate filled belief system.

Earth to Islam: Clean up your house and quit whining

daily times

‘Islam 100 times more likely to be associated with terrorism’

WASHINGTON: Reporters are 100 times more likely to associate Islam with terrorism or militancy than all other faiths combined, an article quoted a word search on news stories published in major newspapers over the past decade as concluding.

“Such lopsided portrayal is indicative of deep-seated misunderstandings about Islam, and sometimes just plain prejudice,” said Parvez Ahmed, chairman of the board of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in an article on Monday. “Surely, all terrorists are not Muslim. Neither are all Muslims terrorists.”....snip........

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006\05\16\story_16-5-2006_pg7_45

Tuesday, May 16, 2006

Monday, May 15, 2006

The Terrorists' ONLY Motivation: Islam

The Terrorists' ONLY Motivation: Islam

by Edwin A. Locke and Alex Epstein  (May 15, 2006)


The continued attacks by Islamic terrorists against the West have led many to ask, what is the motivation of the terrorists? Commentators are eager to offer a bevy of pseudo-explanations--poverty, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, etc.--while ignoring the motivation the terrorists themselves openly proclaim: Islam.

The near silence about the true role of Islam in motivating Islamic terrorists has two main causes: multiculturalism and religion. Multiculturalism asserts that all cultures are equal and therefore none may criticize another; intellectuals and politicians are therefore reluctant to declare the obvious superiority of Western culture to Islamic culture. And the strong commitment to religion of many Americans, especially conservatives, makes them reluctant to indict a religion as the cause of a massive evil. But if we are to identify the fundamental cause of the terrorists' actions, we must understand at least two fundamental premises of the religion they kill for.

First, Islam, like all religions, rejects reason as a means of gaining knowledge and guiding action; it holds that all important truths are grasped by faith in supernatural beings and sacred texts. The Koran explicitly states that knowledge comes from revelation, not thinking. (Christianity in pure form entails a similar rejection of reason, but it has been heavily diluted and secularized since the Renaissance.) Islam advocates the subordination of every sphere of life to religious dogma, including the legal system, politics, economics, and family life; the word "Islam" means literally: submission. The individual is not supposed to think independently but to selflessly subordinate himself to the dictates of his religion and its theocratic representatives. We have seen this before in the West--it was called the Dark Ages.

Second, as with any religion that seeks converts, a derivative tenet of Islam is that it should be imposed by force (you cannot convince someone of the non-rational). The Koran is replete with calls to take up arms in its name: "fight and slay the Pagans wherever you find them . . . those who reject our signs we shall soon cast into the fire . . . those who disbelieve, garments of fire will be cut out for them; boiling fluid will be poured down on their heads . . . as to the deviators, they are the fuel of hell."

These ideas easily lead to fanaticism and terrorism. In fact, what is often referred to as the "fanaticism" of many Muslims is explicitly endorsed by their religion. Consider the following characteristics of religious fanatics. The fanatic demands unquestioning obedience to religious dogma--so does Islam. The fanatic cannot be reasoned with, because he rejects reason--so does Islam. The fanatic eagerly embraces any call to impose his dogma by force on those who will not adopt it voluntarily--so does Islam.

The terrorists are not "un-Islamic" bandits who have "hijacked a great religion"; they are consistent and serious followers of their religion.

It is true that many Muslims who live in the West (like most Christians) reject religious fanaticism and are law-abiding and even loyal citizens, but this is because they have accepted some Western values, including respect for reason, a belief in individual rights, and the need for a separation between church and state. It is only to the extent that they depart from their religion--and from a society that imposes it--that they achieve prosperity, freedom, and peace.

In the last year, there has been more and more of a call for a "War of Ideas"--an intellectual campaign to win the "hearts and minds" of the Arab world that will discourage and discredit Islamic terrorism. Unfortunately, the centerpiece of this campaign so far has been to appeal to Muslims with claims that Islam is perfectly consistent with Western ideals, and inconsistent with terrorism. America has groveled to so-called "moderate" Muslim leaders to strongly repudiate terrorism, with little success. (Those leaders have focused little energy on damning Islamic fanaticism, and much on the alleged sins of the US government.) Such a campaign cannot work, since insofar as these "moderates" accept Islam, they cannot convincingly oppose violence in its name. A true "War of Ideas" would be one in which we proclaim loudly and with moral certainty the secular values we stand for: reason, rights, freedom, material prosperity, and personal happiness on this earth.

link: http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4665

Sunday, May 14, 2006

There is no freedom without truth

There is no freedom without truth: Truth and freedom go hand in hand: Only the truth will set people free

Memo to EU: we call it Islamic terrorism because it is terror inspired by Islam

Nick Cohen
Sunday May 14, 2006
The Observer

The United Nations held 'World Press Freedom Day 2006' earlier this month. I don't know why. Maybe the UN realised that so many of its member states stifled press and other freedoms they needed encouragement to do better. If so, the day was a wretched failure.It began promisingly. At a meeting in Westminster, Roger Koeppel, editor-in-chief of the centre-right German paper Die Welt, gave a classic defence of freedom of expression. He had done what no British editor dared do and printed the Danish cartoons of Muhammad. He received the customary death threats, but didn't regret it, because 'it is essential to protect freedom of expression because of all the pain we have invested to keep our liberal, secular society'.

Dr Maleeha Lodhi, the Pakistani High Commissioner to Britain, opposed him. She denounced 'the tendency in the West to say, "We insult our own, so we can insult yours, too." Well, no. We do have a problem with that and we demand respect'. Her 'demand' for censorship was a faithful reflection of her masters' policy. The Pakistani military dictatorship not only has blasphemy laws, but also forces journalists to resign, arrests them and holds them in solitary confinement. The monitoring agency Freedom House succinctly describes the Pakistani media as 'not free', and they aren't.

So, on the one hand, we had an editor from a liberal democracy saying: 'I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to my death your right to say it' and, on the other, the servant of a military junta that says: 'We may disagree with what you say and if we do, we will send you to prison.' What division could be more natural?

Yet once you got closer, the contrast between liberal democracy and military dictatorship was nowhere near as stark. As Dr Lhodi made her argument that respect could be 'demanded' rather than earned, she cited with approval articles by Simon Jenkins, a columnist for the liberal-conservative Sunday Times and liberal-left Guardian

If she had researched further, she would have found support from Europeans with far more power. Next week, the Council of Europe is holding hearings on whether freedom of expression should include the right to offend religions. It is already clear that the tide is with the supporters of suppression.

Meanwhile, Franco Frattini, the EU's Commissioner for Justice, Freedom and Security, has already banned the use of the phrase 'Islamic terrorism' to describe Islamic terrorism. 'You cannot use the term "Islamic terrorism",' he insisted. 'People who commit suicide attacks or criminal activities on behalf of religion, Islamic religion or other religion, they abuse the name of this religion.'

I was brought up as a democratic socialist and abhorred the crimes committed in the name of the left. But I would always agree that Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were inspired by a version of socialism, just as the most liberal American Christian would accept that fundamentalists who bomb abortion clinics are inspired by a version of Christianity.

Yet the EU wishes to deny that political Islam inspires terrorists to blow up everything from mosques in Baghdad to tube trains in London, even when Islamist terrorists say explicitly that it does. You should always pay your enemies the compliment of taking them seriously. The EU can't understand what its enemies are saying, because it won't call them by their right name.

Keith Porteous Wood, of the National Secular Society, is going to the Council of Europe this week to uphold the battered cause of freedom of speech. He has files full of policy papers from religious groups agitating for the EU or UN to impose a universal blasphemy law. It won't work for the same reason that New Labour's incitement to religious hatred law hasn't worked. A law that protects all religions is self-contradictory, as each religion is blasphemous in the eyes of its rivals.

link: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1774558,00.html

Friday, May 12, 2006

Terrorism is NOT about poverty, terrorism is NOT about money

Educated Muslims found to have supported September 11 attacks
Daily Times, Pakistan ^


Educated Muslims found to have supported September 11 attacks



By Khalid Hasan

WASHINGTON: A Gallop poll survey of eight Muslim countries has shown that those who applauded the 9/11 attacks tended to be better educated and more affluent. They were not necessarily more religious that other Muslims. The poll found that those who regularly attended the mosque were no more likely to back terrorism than those who did not. This also held true of Muslims who believed religion to be important in daily life. According to a Washington Post report, about 25 percent of all Muslims with a higher-than-average income supported the 9/11 attacks, more than the less affluent and the poor Muslims did. Among high school or college graduates, 44 percent held extremist views, compared with 38 percent of less educated Muslims. The unemployed were no more likely to back terrorism than those who worked full time. Extremists were only half as likely as moderates to believe that the US would allow people in the Middle East to fashion their own political future.

link: http://dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006/05/12/story_12-5-2006_pg7_6

RADICAL ISLAM CRITICIZED

RADICAL ISLAM CRITICIZED
Controversial writer Hitchens talks terror

By James Hohmann

The West needs to take the threat of fundamentalist, militant Islam more seriously, controversial British commentator Christopher Hitchens told a predominately older audience at the Geology Corner auditorium last night. In an hour-and-a-half program, the liberal-socialist contrarian with a wry British wit and a sharp English tongue offered up barbs against Osama bin Laden, Muslims, liberals and Jacques Chirac. In an at-times rambling, back-and-forth exchange with audience members, Hitchens also denounced organized religion.“You don’t have to be paranoid, racist or a bigot to take alarm,” he said. “There is a civil war within Islam. We are not in a war on terror. We cannot be at war with an expression.”

Hitchens, an editor for Vanity Fair, described himself as an atheist and issued a sharp rebuke of the Muslim prophet Muhammad.

“Of course, he’s not a prophet,” he said. “He’s an epileptic plagiarist.”

He said the Quran — Islam’s holiest book — was full of “evil fairly tales” that were “unimaginably recycled.”

“It’s a boring plagiarism of the worst parts of Christianity and Judaism,” he added.

Hitchens said he has personally expressed concern to British Prime Minister Tony Blair about Europe’s accommodation of radical Islam. He said that some Muslim leaders have said their growing population means they will eventually take control of Europe.

He said that the continent was more cognizant of the threat posed by fundamentalism in the past. But since the 1960s, he said, the United States has become the more mindful of the two.

“It was more widely, institutionally believed in Europe first that an accommodation with Islam was desirable because it forms a contiguous social and political block within Europe,” Hitchens said. “It’s now the Europeans who want to forget the long struggle against Islam, and the United States is relearning it.”

Hitchens criticized leftists who claim that the Bush administration is beholden to Middle Eastern oil-rich countries such as Saudi Arabia. He said that Bush went against the wishes of the Saudi royal family with the invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq.

“If you can just pronounce the words blood and oil, people will applaud,” he said.

Hitchens, who was and remains an ardent supporter of the war in Iraq, defended the Bush administration’s decision, adding that Saddam Hussein had been making the country less secular and reaching out to religious extremists. He said the criticisms of the “riff-raff calling itself the anti-war movement” are misplaced and reiterated that the American homeland remains at grave risk to terrorists.

Hitchens told the audience about recent meetings with European scholars concerned about the increasing pervasiveness of Islam on the continent. He said he has met with the editors of the Dutch newspapers who decided to print cartoons of the Muslim prophet Muhammad. In the Islamic faith, visually depicting the prophet is considered blasphemy. Some who subscribe to Sharia — Islamic law — believe it should be punished by death.

After the Dutch government declined to crack down on the freedom of the press, radical Muslim clerics sent their followers rioting in several Middle Eastern countries and through Europe. The conflagration event sent some shockwaves through the United States. Hitchens said that news editors were intimidated by threats from Muslims, even though they said they were not.

The speaker tried to assuage fears of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. While in no way apologetic for the regime, he noted that the Iranian president has no power compared to the religious theocratic leadership.

“The situation has been let to rot until there are almost no good choices,” he said. “They have no interest in using their weapons for a preemptive strike because it would literally be the last thing they did.”

......snip............


link: http://www.stanforddaily.com/tempo?page=content&repository=0001_article&id=20434

Muhammad was an epileptic plagiarist, not a prophet!

A classic example of a brainwashed young muslim male

Moussaoui is a classic example of a brainwashed young male muslim zombie. Someone who has been brainwashed into killing for a satanic god.

Words of the jury foreman of the Moussaoui trial:

....snip.......The foreman said most of the jurors did not give much weight to Moussaoui's testimony and thought some of his actions, including volunteering to testify for the prosecution, were "bizarre."

But she told the newspaper they did not believe the defense argument that Moussaoui was mentally ill.

"I think most of us found Moussaoui to be intelligent, smart, crafty and a great manipulator. Those were the comments that were frequently thrown around the table," she said.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060512/ts_nm/security_moussaoui_foreman_dc_2
 



President says his letter to President Bush was invitation to Islam

Jakarta, May 11, IRNA
Indonesia-Ahmadinejad-Bush
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said here Thursday that his letter to President George W. Bush did not concern the nuclear dossier, but rather was an invitation to Islam and the prophets culture.

He made the above remarks in reply to a reporter while attending press conference on his letter to President Bush in Jakarta in the afternoon of the third day of his stay in Jakarta. ....snip

link: http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-24/0605110155191821.htm

Evidentally the satan worshipping monsters have to give an opportunity to join the death cult before killing you. Posted by Picasa

Wednesday, May 10, 2006

Even Castro wouldn't fall for a belief system that creates the worst, failed, most barbaric societies on earth.

IRAN: AYATOLLAHS INVITE CASTRO TO BECOME A MUSLIM


Tehran, 22 Nov. (AKI) - Iran's religious authorities in the holy Shiite city of Qom have officially invited Cuba's revolutionary leader Fidel Castro, to convert to Islam, according to Hojatolislam Mohammad Reza Hakimi, quoted by Iran's Farda news agency. "I met Castro together with the Iranian foreign minister, Saiid Salili, and gave him some sacred Islamic texts translated into Spanish," said Hakimi, who recently returned from a government visit to Cuba.

"We spoke with Castro for several hours, and I think I almost managed to convince him to become a Muslim," Hakimi added. "Castro certain that Cuba is suffering from a lack of spirituality, and seems very interested in Islam, above all in the writing of Iran's revolutionary leader, Ayatallah Khomeini," Hakimi continued............


A false religion with false beginnings?

Writings plagarized from the jews?

Even Castro wouldn't fall for a belief system that creates the worst, failed, most barbaric societies on earth.

A belief system so awful that it has to kill those who try to escape.

Tuesday, May 09, 2006

What went wrong? And is still wrong?

Modernizing the Muslim world
May 7, 2006. 07:32 AM
BERNARD LEWIS

The following is an edited transcript of Bernard Lewis's talk at the Grano lecture series last Tuesday on the role of women in the Middle East. Lewis is the Cleveland E. Lodge Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University and the author of What Went Wrong? Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response. He is a senior advisor to the President on Middle Eastern affairs.



Muslims have been keenly aware of the weakness and relative backwardness of their society for a long time now. This awareness begins, of course, with defeat in the battlefield — that is where the lessons of history are most perspicuously administered — but it has spread to other things, and for a long time now the debate has been going on in the Islamic world. "What did we do wrong? What is the secret of Western success and of our failure?"

Let me begin my discussion of that with a definition: gender. Gender, as you know, is a grammatical term. In Latin, there are three genders: masculine, feminine and neutral. In modern usage it has come to acquire a somewhat different connotation, meaning relations between the sexes other than the purely physical ones.

I would like to begin with two quotations from the very rich Muslim literature commenting on these changes. My first comes from 1593. This is recorded by an imperial historiographer. A new English ambassador arrived in Istanbul sent by Queen Elizabeth. The first thing the historiographer commented on was the ship on which the ambassador arrived. He writes with obvious bewilderment, "This is a ship that travels thousands of miles and carries 83 guns, besides other weapons." English ships were built for the Atlantic, and they are therefore bigger, stronger and more manoeuvrable than the Mediterranean ships of the Muslim world.

His other point is even more astonishing, and he says with palpable bewilderment, "This ambassador comes from a country which is ruled by a woman who rules her inherited realmwith complete power." He doesn't draw any inferences from that, nor did anyone else for some time to come.

Then, in 1867, a Turkish writer called Nama Kamal published an article in which he said, "The reason for backwardness is the way we treat our women, treating them only as suitable for producing children and nothing else."As far as I know, he was the first to make that point. From then onwards it becomes more and more of an issue in the Muslim world, and has continued to be to the present day. There are some who see this as the major factor in the relative backwardness of the Muslim world compared with the West. There are others on the opposite side who see this as the major factor of Western dissipation and corruption and evil.

I firmly believe that women are our best hope in dealing with the Muslim world, because they have so much to gain from modernization.

Now, there has been a fair amount of change. Let me look very rapidly at certain specific issues.

Islamic law permits polygamy and concubinage. The Qur'an is quite explicit on this. It says a man may have up to four wives and as many concubines as he wishes and can afford. Concubines are female slaves whom it is permitted to use sexually.

..snip............

link: http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1146865816646&call_pageid=1105528093962&col=1105528093790

Thursday, May 04, 2006

  Posted by Picasa

The culture that encourages death squads must change

The culture that encourages death squads must change. Where are the brainwashers behind this madness? Where are their own families? As they casually send other people's children out to destroy and kill others?

12 terrorists hunt Danish cartoonists
Europe-bound dirty dozen traveling through Iran, claims Afghan report

WASHINGTON – A dozen young terrorists have departed Afghanistan, bound first for Iran and then Europe, where their mission will be to hunt down the Danish cartoonists responsible for drawing anti-Muhammad sketches, according to a report in Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin.

The report was passed on by Hamid Mir, the Pakistani journalist who has interviewed al-Qaida leaders Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri and who just visited the no-man's land along the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

While there, he was told by Taliban sources in south Waziristan that 12 young men – nine Afghans and three Pakistanis – are on their way to Europe to kill the Danish cartoonists. While some carry Afghan passports and others carry Iranian passports, all will travel through Iran on their way to Europe, he reports.

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50037

Monday, May 01, 2006

 

CAIR Asks Why No Muslim Groups To Speak At Darfur Rally
Lack of Muslim speakers calls into question rally's 'true agenda'


CAIR ASKS WHY NO MUSLIM GROUPS TO SPEAK AT DARFUR RALLY
Lack of Muslim speakers calls into question rally's 'true agenda'

(WASHINGTON, DC, 4/30/2006) - The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) today questioned why no representatives of major American Muslim groups are listed as speakers at the Save Darfur Coalition "Rally to Stop Genocide" this afternoon in Washington, D.C.

CAIR and other American Muslim groups, including the Islamic Society of North America, the Islamic Circle of North America, the Muslim Public Affairs Council, and the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation, are members of the coalition. But no representative from these, or any Muslim coalition member, is listed on the latest rally program. (Several Muslims will speak, but they do not represent Islamic groups that are coalition members.)


Why indeed? Would CAIR lie, blame others, whine endlessly??? Posted by Picasa

CAIR ASKS WHY NO MUSLIM GROUPS TO SPEAK AT DARFUR RALLY

CAIR Asks Why No Muslim Groups To Speak At Darfur Rally
Lack of Muslim speakers calls into question rally's 'true agenda'


CAIR ASKS WHY NO MUSLIM GROUPS TO SPEAK AT DARFUR RALLY
Lack of Muslim speakers calls into question rally's 'true agenda'

(WASHINGTON, DC, 4/30/2006) - The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) today questioned why no representatives of major American Muslim groups are listed as speakers at the Save Darfur Coalition "Rally to Stop Genocide" this afternoon in Washington, D.C.

CAIR and other American Muslim groups, including the Islamic Society of North America, the Islamic Circle of North America, the Muslim Public Affairs Council, and the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation, are members of the coalition. But no representative from these, or any Muslim coalition member, is listed on the latest rally program. (Several Muslims will speak, but they do not represent Islamic groups that are coalition members.)


Why indeed? Would CAIR lie, blame others, whine endlessly???

Free Site Counter