Not all criticism against the Progess Party for Islamophobia is unjustified. Dagbladet has dug up some real wackoes in Kristiansand who want to ban the religion of Islam:

- We are not alone to call for a ban. This is a thought well founded in Scandinavian countries. Now we're importing people with a religion run like when it was created in the desert 600 years ago [??] The freedom we have in Norway may be taken away from us, unless we start making demands of immigrants, says chairman Halvor Hulaas of Kristiansand Progress Party to Dagbladet.

Deputy leader of the Progress Party city council group in Kristiansand, Karina Udnæs, goes even further. - It is about time Norway and Europe makes the ideology of Islam, and the practice of it, illegal and punishable in the same way as Nazism. The prophet Muhammed encourages the murder of all infidels, says Udnæs to Dagbladet. ..

- What I'm against is the religion Islam as it is practiced today. It is a threat against our society and way of life. In Kristiansand we now face the threat of having a great mosque built in the center of town. If there's something we don't need, it's a centrally located mosque. We know what these mosques are used for, says Hulaas.

In a letter to Norge i Dag, a conservative Christian newspaper, Karina Udnæs repeats the call for a ban - this story is not a media creation:

Perhaps it is time to reevaluate the principle of freedom of religion, and to ban Islam and other covert religions which in their texts promote the murder of those who refuse to submit to the ideology of their religion? Nazism is, after all, an illegal ideology in Europe. There are many similarities between the "ideological" writings of the Koran, and Adolf Hitler's ideological book "Mein Kampf". ..

On the basis of this, the ideologi of Islam as well as the practice of this ideology should be as illegal in Norway and Europe as the ideology and practice of Nazism is illegal and punishable.

Carl I. Hagen replies to Dagbladet that these are not the views of the Progress Party, and that bad ideas should be fought with arguments and education, not bans. That's probably what most of the Progress Party belives. But what will he do about these rogue Islamophobes in Kristiansand? Is it at all acceptable for a Progress Party politician to oppose freedom of religion and call for a ban on an entire faith?

I hope not. There's a tendency for groups that are constantly hounded like the Progress Party is to become so used to unfair and malicious attacks that they are unable to respond properly to fair attacks. Loyalty to your comrades in the trench becomes more important than truthfulness and ethics. I hope Hagen can rise above that tendency, and that this is the last time we hear this nonsense from the Progress Party.

"I hope Hagen can rise above that tendency, and that this is the last time we hear this nonsense from the Progress Party."

I'll bet you my first unborn child that it is not. It's what the Progress party has always been about. Exclusions and persecutions, both inside and outside the party. Every two or three years the party has to go thorough some catharsis because some of the loonies they let in do or say something that is beyond all limits. This does not happen often, if at all with the other parties in Norway.

Bjørn says: «Is it at all acceptable for a Progress Party politician to oppose freedom of religion and call for a ban on an entire faith?».

Well, you let her present her case in your blog, so haven't you implicitely said «yes, it is acceptable»? Of course it is acceptable. What is not acceptable is the condemnation of controversial opinion. I'd say screw the meta-debate and take on Ms Undæs' arguments. You might find that she has a point or two even if you don't arrive at the same conclusion.

Yes, religions enjoy the protection of civil law. But the religion in question has clercis that encourage their faithful to ignore civil law. Claiming the protection of a law that you spit on is hypocritic. How far can you go in permitting someone to use the laws of a society that he detests as an instrument to undermine it?

A ban is problematic for many reasons and it wouldn't solve any problems. And how the heck would you enforce it? I can't imagine Norwegian customs officials examining the tourists' luggage to see if they have brought a Quran with them (in the finest Saudi tradition).

As long as we already have the laws to stop the crazy clerics or the parents that want to get their daughter married to a cousin from Pakistan that she never met, enforcing those existing laws would be a good start. But when will that happen?

Contrary to what these wackoes say, we permit neo-nazism in Norway. Mein Kampf is not only legal, you can borrow it in publicly owned libraries.

This IS GREAT. The first site is http://www.thepaperboy.com.au/welcome.html It lists newspapers country by country. You select the country and it displays the papers that are published. It also lists the language of publication. You then select the paper and can read what you want. Now for the really cool part. If the paper is not in English you copy the URL and go to Babelfish at http://world.altavista.com/ You go down the page, put in the URL and select the languages that you want translated. It does it in about 5 seconds and then you can read whatever is being said. Is that cool! Unfortunately they have not yet included Norwegian

Norway should create a nationalist Islamic organization similar to the Norweigan Lutheran Church or one of the many European nationalist Christian churches.

The only difference from traditional Islam would be a rejection of jihad and an oath of allegiance to Norway. The only muslims who could live permananently in Norway would have to be part of the Norweigan Islam branch.

An official Norwegian branch of Islam?

Will they face towards Oslo when they pray?

Anders: “This does not happen often, if at all with the other parties in Norway.”

That has partly to do with how “controversial” is defined in Norway. The Socialist Left attracts much the same kind of wackoes as the Progress Party, but their views are considered less controversial, and attract less attention. What you say is more true for the parties in the center.

Christian Skaug: “Well, you let her present her case in your blog, so haven't you implicitely said «yes, it is acceptable»? Of course it is acceptable. What is not acceptable is the condemnation of controversial opinion.”

What, never? It is never acceptable to condemn a view you disagree with, and never acceptable to hold a political party accountable for the public statements of its own politicians?

Surely the fairness of a condemnation depends on what you're condemning. Carl I. Hagen, for instance, did not make a vile Islamophobic speech in Bergen. These people want to abandon freedom of religion, one of the foundation stones of the West. That's worth condemning, in my view.

“I'd say screw the meta-debate and take on Ms Undæs' arguments.”

Sure. And my counterargument is that all Muslims are not Islamists – and all Islamists aren't currently actively planning a criminal act.

Jan Haugland: “Contrary to what these wackoes say, we permit neo-nazism in Norway. Mein Kampf is not only legal, you can borrow it in publicly owned libraries.”

Yeah, I forgot to catch them on that. Their larger point may have been that Islam should be treated no better than Nazism, so that whatever you do to Nazism you should also do to Islam, because there's no difference between them. And although Nazism isn't banned, a neo-nazi group probably wouldn't be allowed to build a new meeting place in the center of Kristiansand.

It is hard enough to be against non western immigration and islam without people like this.
This way the media can show that being against islam equals being against freedom of religion. They dont create much room for people critical of islam or immigration with more sober views.

It is hard enough to be against non western immigration and islam without people like this.
This way the media can show that being against islam equals being against freedom of religion. They dont create much room for people critical of islam or immigration with more sober views.

As an ex-Muslim, it is of the utmost importance that Norway recognize the existential threat to the Norwegian population, civilization, and culture. The goal of Islamist theology is the conquest and conversion of the population into a serf society under the control of Islam.

Islam is not a religion, it is a political totalitarian fascist ideology with the goal of complete domination. In essence, become Muslim, or die.

Best Regards,
Fuad Al'Razi

Leslie: Hey, neighbor! Fancy meeting a Minnesotan on a Norwegian blog...

Bjorn:

You would have a different opinion of Muslims if you'd worked with the ones I worked with. Especially "Johnny Taliban". A cruel, BIGOTED, nick-name I called him behind his back, sure...

BUT IT WAS TRUE! John converted to Islam, breaking the hearts of his Christian parents. But he went beyond that. He was involved in this Dinky-Town Mosque (ask Leslie where that is), that preached VIOLENT ANTI-AMERICAN HATRED! He was a FANATIC! HE HATED AMERICA!

And then, of course, there were actual immigrants. The Somali-muslims that I worked with were bitter and hateful. Always suspicious of anyone white.

I met some shop-keepers who were friendly, but then recently I encountered a shop where they wouldn't serve us INFIDELS! Hey, all I want is a gyro and a coke! BUT NOOOOO!!!

Bjørn: «It is never acceptable to condemn a view you disagree with [...]?»

Condemnation is a way of saying «I am morally superior to you, therefore I am right». That is hardly convincing. In another thread you rightly ridiculed the moral establishment's condemnation of Hagen. Can't you see that you are doing exactly the same thing?

Bjørn: «These people want to abandon freedom of religion, one of the foundation stones of the West»

Another foundation stone is respect for the law. Now the law is being instrumentalized by the clerics of islam. Freedom of religion has its limits, although it isn't necessary to tell it explicitely to civilized people. Now, many ancient religions practised human sacrifice. I can assure you that the authorities would screw the respect for his or her ancient religion should someone start slaughtering a human being publicly or privately to honor God. And rightly so, because civil law stands above religious law when the two are in conflict. We are witnessing islamic clerics who take advantage of our respect for the principle of freedom of religion. I assume you also think it's a problem, so if banning islam is not the right answer, what is your suggestion?

Matt: “You would have a different opinion of Muslims if you'd worked with the ones I worked with.”

Probably not. This is that fallacy I mentioned in another thread: “It's not true that some A are B, because I know that some A are C.” If all Muslims you have gotten to know have been Islamists, and this is a fair number of people, then you may have a point. But that requires more than “I know an Islamist, have met som unfriendly Somalis, and was denied service in a Muslim store once”.

Anonymous: “Condemnation is a way of saying «I am morally superior to you, therefore I am right». That is hardly convincing.”

My definition of condemnation is “an expression of strong disapproval; pronouncing as wrong or morally culpable” http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=condemnation&r=67. Where did you find yours? I'm particularly interested in why you define all condemnations as irrational, ie based only in an assumption of moral superiority.

I do have a reason for saying these people are wrong, and I believe they're wrong in a way that undermines one of the pillars of Western society. A condemnation is not my way of boosting my ego at the expense of dissenters, but my way of telling the Progress Party that if they want me to take them seriously on Islam and immigration, they can't have local party leaders that say these things. They should kick them out, like they've done with others with similar views before.

“In another thread you rightly ridiculed the moral establishment's condemnation of Hagen. Can't you see that you are doing exactly the same thing?”

What, taking quotes out of context so I can unfairly brand a critic of Islamism as an Islamophobe? The quotes were in context, (you can read Udnæs's whole letter yourself), and these people are criticizing Islam as a whole, not just the fanatics. They have an irrational fear of Islam. That makes them Islamophobes.

Let's say you're member of an organization that calls for the practice of Islam to be banned in Norway. A newspaper discovers that members of a local group aren't satisfied with banning Islam, they're talking about having Muslims rounded up in camps, so they can't do us any damage in the coming world war with Islam. This newspaper asks you for a comment. Do you say “I condemn this and will work for these people to be kicked out of my organization”, or “I don't agree with what they say, but who am I to say that I'm morally superior to them? Let them speak, and let them continue to speak in our name.”

(I choose this example not to say that rounding up Muslims is the logical next step from banning Islam, but to show you how ridiculous it is to protest what I'm saying here on principle. Condemnations are fair or unfair depending on what you're condemning.)

“Another foundation stone is respect for the law. Now the law is being instrumentalized by the clerics of islam. Freedom of religion has its limits, although it isn't necessary to tell it explicitely to civilized people.”

Freedom of religion is an extension of freedom of thought and freedom of speech. Freedom of thought is rarely made explicit, but is considered to be total. Democracies don't condemn people for thought crimes. Freedom of speech is limited by banning speech that incites to criminal behavior, and occasionally by banning speech that is particularly hurtful, (libel, racism/hate speech). I agree with the first kind of limit, mostly not with the second.

How exactly does your ban affect these principles and practices? Would it extend to the faith itself, making it illegal to believe that Muhammed was the prophet of Allah? Would it be illegal to proselytize for Islam in public, and if so would you justify that ban by defining Islam as incitement to commit a crime, as hate speech, or as something else?

“Now, many ancient religions practised human sacrifice. I can assure you that the authorities would screw the respect for his or her ancient religion should someone start slaughtering a human being publicly or privately to honor God.“

Indeed. Then you're not talking about banning Islam as such, but only about upholding our current laws? If somebody sacrifices a person to their God, you don't need any new laws to prosecute them, you don't need a ban on their particular religion – you just have to uphold the existing law against murder.

“We are witnessing islamic clerics who take advantage of our respect for the principle of freedom of religion. I assume you also think it's a problem, so if banning islam is not the right answer, what is your suggestion?”

I agree it is a problem when people in democratic societies sign up for totalitarian ideas. But my estimation of this problem is not the same as yours, so my suggestion to what “the right answer” is depends on whose question we're asking, yours or mine? Your question seems to be “how can we defend ourselves against an entire world religion whose followers work ceaselessly to end democracy and form strict Islamic governments?” My question is “how can we help Muslims avoid Islamism and turn towards pro-Western and liberal forms of their faith?” You believe that all Muslims are the enemy, and so any solution you propose must be applied equally to all Muslims. I believe there are different kinds of Islam, and that we should choose different strategies depending on who we're dealing with.

Islamist ideas should be fought the way we usually fight Nazi ideas, by exposing their irrationality and immorality, and by bringing light to and scrutinizing their organizations and dealings. No safe havens from criticism, no dark corners to hide in. Apologism for Islamism or Islamist terrorism should be fought by appealing to the conscience of such Muslims, exposing their hypocrisy, holding them to high standards, depriving them of the Islamophobe card. The key is to fight bad ideas with good ideas, and to always hold the door open for those Muslims who don't agree with or make excuses for Islamists, and who don't mind adapting their faith to Western values. These people exist already, many of them. They've found the solution to the problem of Islamism – better Islam, not the end of Islam. And that can't happen if you close the door to moderate Islam, which a ban would.

One more thing - came across this discusson on LGF: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=11774_Norways_Progress_Party_Demands_Ban_on_Islam

I'm really disappointed by the number of "right on!"'s. Not sure if they're in majority, but at least a large minority. These people are right-wing Americans, as pro-Western a crowd you're ever likely to find. And they want Norway to abolish our equivalent of the first amendment? This is what happens when a good, new idea ("perhaps Islam isn't as peaceful as we thought") is stretched, and stretched, and stretched, and you lose sight of any facts or considerations that don't conform to the view of Islam as dangerous.

My dictionary defines a phobia as an irrational fear or anxiety. If you call those who detest Islam "Islamophobes" you are way off the mark because the threat is REAL. What other group has sought to teardown Western society with as much zeal as Al Qaida and all its scum-ridden followers? To this day I haven't heard much condemnation from their "mainstream" breatheren, either. Either tolerate and respect the rest of the world or get out!! Kristiansand, you may have a few more residents.

I do not believe that Hagen's comments are so terrible. Norway, like the rest of Europe, makes more coffins then cradles. In short its population is imploding. As Europe gets older, more and more taxes will have to be levied to transfer resources to support an elderly population. The only brake on this at the current time is that Europe imports Muslim workers. Notice that Asian and South American immigrants do not go to Europe; they go to the US for a whole host of reasons. Unless there is some form of assimilation - which is not taking place - then at current trends Europe will be Muslim in 75 to 100 years. If that is so then there will not a separation of church and state because Islam does not recognize such a division. Western values will die. To continue to hold up tolerance as a virtue in this circumstance is virtually a suicide pact. Unless Europe comes to grip with this, I do not see any options. As I see it, Muslims will have to be asked to make choice and trade a better life for a change of values or stay home. The only other alternative may be to admit Turkey which at least has a semblance of a division of church and state and foster that view or continue to allow Islam to remain unchanged and to continue to allow mainstream Immans to have free rein. If the latter, in my view, Europe will die as we know it.

Bjørn, you see this as a "freedom of religion" issue, and it is, to some extent. But is also an existential threat, as Fuad Al'Razi noted above.

It comes down to this: Europeans have forgotten the reason that their ancestors fought wars to drive the Muslims from western Europe. These are people who do NOT share your values, because YOUR values are incompatible with those of Islam.

We are seeing a cuckoo's egg situation in Europe. A cuckoo lays its egg in the nest of a different species of bird. When the cuckoo's egg hatches, the cuckoo chick outcompetes the other hatchlings, because it is larger, and ultimately pushes them out of the nest. The parent birds of the other species are tricked into feeding and caring for the cuckoo hatchling at the expense of their own young.

THAT is what Islam is in western Europe.

Bjørn: «A condemnation is [...] my way of telling the Progress Party that if they want me to take them seriously on Islam and immigration, they can't have local party leaders that say these things.»

Hardly an efficient communication strategy.

Ms Udnæs says islam is a political ideology as well as a religion, and as an ideology it has much in common with nazism and fascism, that are banned in several countries. That constitutes an argument in favor of banning islam.

Hiding behind freedom of religion to promote an ideology that aims to destroy that very freedom (among many others) is an instrumentalization of a noble principle. It has to be avoided and Ms Udnæs suggests abandoing the principle in self-defence. Although I don't share her conclusion, it's a coherent and perfectly respectable opinion and much more intelligent than the criticism against her.

If Islam is all about Islamist theocracies, why is a country like Turkey, with a overwhelming majority of Muslems, not becoming one? Why would the people of Iran, another overwhelmingly Muslem state, throw the Mullahs out of power if their elections were fair and free?

Islamic radicalism is a serious problem, but it is still true that only a minority of thw world's one billion or so Muslims share the visions of Bin Laden or the Ayatollahs.

Stereotyping the many based on the expressions of a vocal minority is not going to help us. We need the world's Muslims on our side in the war against terror, and the more the terrorists wage war, the more people will stand up against them.

The narcissism and ingratitude of muslims is enough to give them a swift kick back to the desert... Extremely asinine losers...

Martin: “My dictionary defines a phobia as an irrational fear or anxiety. If you call those who detest Islam "Islamophobes" you are way off the mark because the threat is REAL.”

What, from all of it? What kind of threat is it you perceive that is so pervasive that you have to ban all forms of Islam without exception? Yes, al-Qaeda is dangerous. That's not a counter-argument to anything I or anyone else have said here. Try explaining instead what it is about the next Pakistani I see on the street in Oslo that should frighten me enough to take away their religion by force.

“Kristiansand, you may have a few more residents.”

I'm curious: Are you prepared to remove the first amendment so you can do the same in the US, or do you only support this idea when foreigners do it?

Herbie: “Unless there is some form of assimilation - which is not taking place - then at current trends Europe will be Muslim in 75 to 100 years. If that is so then there will not a separation of church and state because Islam does not recognize such a division. Western values will die. To continue to hold up tolerance as a virtue in this circumstance is virtually a suicide pact.”

Remember what we're talking about here: a guess that certain bad trends, if they can all be assumed to continue as today, and barring all unforeseeable change, might possibly in 75 years create a Europe where Muslims could in a worst case scenario create an Islamist state. Doom scenarios are very easy to visualize, but that's about the only thing they have going for them.

BarCodeKing: “We are seeing a cuckoo's egg situation in Europe.”

I don't think what we need in this debate is better metaphors to describe what is supposed to happen, but more reasoning and hard facts (and a lot of humility) to explain how it is supposed to happen. And for that you need to do more than extrapolate statistics. There are so many factors here, I'm just amazed that anyone can think they're able to see decades ahead. Can you even begin to list all the relevant factors? We should deal with what we have here and now, and at most what we might have in a year or five. Anything further ahead is just fantasy - easily visualizable tales that say a lot more about those who believe in them than about the future.

Christian: “Hardly an efficient communication strategy.”

No, being honest and holding your own side to the same high standards as the other side isn't a very efficient strategy. It's much more practical to say that any critic of Islam is a friend of mine, and just ignore it when Islam critics turn out to be paranoiacs who want to abolish freedom of speech and religion. Hush it down, don't provide the enemy with ammunition, and keep on marching towards victory. Then one day you wake up and realize that the ideas you've fought for all these years have been hijacked and turned sour by the very same wackoes you ignored in the beginning, that because you never held your own side to high standards it never felt obligated to live by them. Which is what happened to a lot of the movements we think of as the mainstream left today.

“Ms Udnæs says islam is a political ideology as well as a religion, and as an ideology it has much in common with nazism and fascism, that are banned in several countries. That constitutes an argument in favor of banning islam.”

Not a very strong one. Nazism as an idea is not banned in Norway, for instance. If you start a revolutionary movement with the explicit goal of violently overthrowing the Norwegian government, and if you start planning and training people for that purpose, then they come and arrest you. And when Muslims do that in Norway, I hope they'll be arrested too. But don't pretend that's what we're talking about here. You're justifying a very severe and undemocratic response with shoddy guesswork, a narrow interpretation of the Koran, and the mother of all generalizations.

It's not true, for instance, that Islam is a political ideology, and that that ideology is Islamism. Quote the Koran all you want, Islam is whatever Muslims say, do and think in Islam's name. And what most of them say, do and think is very different from the Islamist movements. Many don't care about politics. Those who care don't usually look to the Koran for political answers. And even those who do that find support in their holy texts for a broad variety of political beliefs.

There are Muslims who have no problem with democracy, and there are Muslims who have no particular views about anything outside their tribe and family. Either you have to leave them out of your definition of Islam – or there's something wrong with your definition. Which is it?

“Hiding behind freedom of religion to promote an ideology that aims to destroy that very freedom (among many others) is an instrumentalization of a noble principle.”

That noble principle happens to be the essence of our democracy. Liberal democracy is about voluntarily giving up power to do good, in return for something more important, freedom from oppression. We have voluntarily restricted our own ability to perfect society, because we fear what that power could do in the hands of the wrong people. That's not a byproduct of democracy, it's the whole point. It's not a feature of democracy you can somehow fix. If you fix it, it's no longer liberal democracy.

Let's assume for now that Norway would be a much better place if all those people who are Muslims today became atheists or Christians. To make that happen, however, to change by force the personal beliefs and the culture of hundreds of thousands of people who have done no crime, who have no intention of committing a crime, and who are targetted exclusively because of their belief in Allah, would be to give the state power that is incompatible with liberal democracy. We would create an authoritarian democracy that would be easily converted to fascism.

We would (on that very shoddy assumption) do good, but at a price I don't want to pay. Do you? Do you want to live in a country where there are thought crimes and the state is powerful enough to enforce them? If you're the anonymous commenter above, you didn't reply to my question of how specifically this would be done, (I'm still waiting), but it certainly would require a massively powerful state.

“It has to be avoided and Ms Udnæs suggests abandoing the principle in self-defence.”

Somehow I'm reminded of Uncle Jimbo in South Park shouting “It's coming straight as us!” when he goes hunting harmless animals. Or that other episode where a group of people locked in a building by bad weather is just a little bit too quick to turn to cannibalism to survive. Please, show me the emergency. Show me the army on our doorsteps eager and ready to enslave us. Then I'll consider making exceptions to our freedoms for the duration of the war. But what you and Udnæs is doing is something else – you're prepared to abandon liberal democracy in favor of a different political system. You're saying that liberal democracy doesn't work, that its tolerance for dangerous ideas makes it inherently weak and self destructive, so weak that it can't even withstand the presence of a Muslim minority. We've heard those arguments before, and though they're not without merit, I don't remember hearing about any good alternatives.

Many people are frightened of Islamofascism, and rightly so. Unfortunately, it's been poorly defined, and the Moslem communities are doing nothing to help. It's impossible to tell how much support - how mainstream - Islamism is. Many of the Islamists do seem to enjoy wide support in their contries of origin.

Many governments (including the US), are not really confronting this, and I believe this is causing a lot of frustration on the part of many people. Al Jezeera is pretending to be a news outlet, there are Mullah Krekars marching about, and radical clerics in Canada and France just for starters.

I remember the Cold War. Anyone traveling to eastern block countries was questioned. It wasn't because they were all spies, or members of the Politbureau. Some were trying to get relatives out, others may have been political dissidents, some may have been threatened by the Soviets, or they were being blackmailed. Some were spies. Our liberal democracy did not collapse, because we made these distinctions.

Today, PC has made this impossible, and therein lies the problem. Because we are not distinguishing between the Krekars and "Average Abdullah", we are not handling the internal threats in a manner that tells the population that the government will protect them. Because we are not distinguishing our enemies from the general population, one reaction is to simply remove the whole threat.

I do not believe that this has it's roots in bigotry or racism (although it can quickly turn into that). What if tens of thousands of Russians had emmigrated to Norway during the Cold War with no vetting process? And if you asked about this, and the answer you got was "Well, they're not all working for the KGB". Oh great. That's not an answer. But that's really what we're getting here. It's a cop-out.

Wanting to ban a religion is, I believe, a reaction to government failures. And the doctrine(s) in Islam is not a helper, yet it seems as though no demands are made on it. No distinctions. Real discussion is not possible. And that's not good.

Islam must adapt, or fail on it's own merits, but PC won't let that process start. To me, that's the real danger.

Bjørn, it is interesting to note that you continue to label people with different perception and controversial opinion as wackoes and paranoid. Where is your respect for free thought? You also fail to grasp that I can defend another person's point of view as a valuable contribution to public discourse without sharing the identical views. You are just as intolerant as the ones you criticise. Thank you for pointing it out so clearly.

Bjorn you say "Doom scenarios are very easy to visualize, but that's about the only thing they have going for them." No, my scenario is based on on facts that exist now (i.e. non assimilation of a rapidly growing Moslem population, an imploding European population, a lack of tolerance in the Islamic community) Yours appears to be based on what exactly?

Christian: “Bjørn, it is interesting to note that you continue to label people with different perception and controversial opinion as wackoes and paranoid. Where is your respect for free thought?”

Okay, those two words were out of line, though they weren't intentionally aimed at you. The rest of what I wrote was not.

“You also fail to grasp that I can defend another person's point of view as a valuable contribution to public discourse without sharing the identical views.”

If I've mistakenly attributed any views to you, feel free to correct me. You haven't been very clear on where you stand in this, though. You said earlier about Udnæs that “although I don't share her conclusion, it's a coherent and perfectly respectable opinion and much more intelligent than the criticism against her.” Surely then it is valid for me to show that her views are not intelligent, nor very well tought out?

“You are just as intolerant as the ones you criticise.”

Because I criticize Udnæs for being wrong, or because I don't think the Progress Party should tolerate her views? The first is disagreement, which is always healthy. The second is party politics. All parties define themselves by which opinions their politicians are expected to have. It's not acceptable for a Socialist Left politicians to support privatization and tax cuts, or for a Labor politician to call for armed revolution, because that contradicts the core of their party's ideology. In the same way, it should not be acceptable for a Progress Party politician to be so firmly against freedom of religion and freedom of speech, which contradicts the liberal and democratic ideals their party usually work for. The Progress Party must ask itself: Do we as a party support freedom of religion, or do we not really care? To the degree that they allow people like Udnæs to stay in the party, they don't just imply that they don't care, they become a party that doesn't care.

Herbie: “No, my scenario is based on on facts that exist now (i.e. non assimilation of a rapidly growing Moslem population, an imploding European population, a lack of tolerance in the Islamic community)”

Yes, and you're extrapolating that for decades into the future without considering other relevant factors we know about, such as the self-corrective ability of democracy, the complexity of human behavior, and many more it would take me a lot of research to discover. The effect of most of these factors, although we know what they are, is impossible to predict, because they're not linear. And in addition to the factors we know about, there's the Big Unknown Factor – the one factor that has done more than any other to screw up confident predictions throughout history.

We really don't know what is going to happen in the future, and when I say “don't know” I don't mean that we can make vague guesses that we're not entirely sure about, I mean that we don't know. At all. We can make some very narrow guesses about simple factors such as population, but nothing remotely on your scale. And like in all other areas where we don't know but wish we could, we make things up. That's all this scenario is, an easily visualizable tale that is popular with Islam critics for the same reason scenarios that involve environmental collapse are popular with environmentalists, scenarios of a right-wing government turned fascist is popular with leftists, and the post-nuclear wasteland was popular with anti-nuclear activists. It's an issue they care strongly about, and a future primarily defined by that issue somehow captures their imagination and puts what they do in a pleasing context.

“Yours appears to be based on what exactly?”

But I don't have a scenario. I'm not saying that your scenario is not going to come true, I'm saying that it's meaningless and irrational to even make scenarios for 50-100 years into the future.

Bjoprn you say "We really don't know what is going to happen in the future" Well I for one am not willing to see how it turns out and otherwise do nothing; if you are wrong what then. No, I prefer to move in the direction impelled by my concerns which you do not dispute and say only that they may not come to pass. Indeed your view was once defined by Ambrose Bierce as regards a second marriage: "the triumph of hope over experience.” If I am wrong I can always modify my position. Under your scenario there is too much risk of having to react from a position of weakness

"As an ex-Muslim, it is of the utmost importance that Norway recognize the existential threat to the Norwegian population, civilization, and culture. The goal of Islamist theology is the conquest and conversion of the population into a serf society under the control of Islam."

Good to see you, Fuad Al'Razi. We need many, many more people like you. Have you read the book "Leaving Islam - Apostates Speak Out", edited by Ibn Warraq? It is one of the greatest books ever written about Islam:

http://www.secularislam.org/testimonies/index.htm

Of course, there are also more and more websites by ex-Muslims appearing:

http://www.secularislam.org/

http://www.faithfreedom.org/

http://www.middleastwomen.org/

http://www.apostatesofislam.com/

http://www.mukto-mona.com/

http://www.homa.org/

http://www.ladeeni.net/english.htm

http://taslimanasrin.com/

http://www.muslimsandislamic.faithweb.com/

http://www.geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/

http://exmuslim.com/

http://www.islamreview.org/

http://www.swordoftruth.com/swordoftruth/archives/byauthor/anwarshaikh/articles.html

http://www.noniedarwish.com/

http://www.murtadd.org/

http://www.webspawner.com/users/hfali1/

http://www.knowislam.info/

http://www.geocities.com/ibn_rushd2

http://www.ampbreia.com/

How Norway deals with this is Norway's business. But I do wish Hagen and the Progress Party would avoid tying their views to Israel. I appreciate their support, but Israel has never restricted or demonized Islam per se, Islam is an intrinsic part of the country and the social system, and even the far-far-rightists there don't make public statements condemning Islam comparable to these.

By the time well-intentioned Western European people like Bjorn figure out what Islam is, it will be too late. You will be stuck with it. By that time you will be furiously negotiating with Islam's political elite to hold on to the few scarps of your culture that they are willing to let you have (see Copts, Christian, Egypt or Assyrians, Christian, Iraq or Zoroastrians, Persian, Iran.)

Then it'll be time for the lucky few of Western Europe who can afford it to empty out and make tracks across the Atlantic. Western Europe is dead; long live Islamic Eurabia.

A reader WEll SAID

Herbie: “Indeed your view was once defined by Ambrose Bierce as regards a second marriage: "the triumph of hope over experience.””

But that's our problem – we have no experience that tells us what Europe will look like in 2050. So what are we going to act on? I do not dispute the trends you're extrapolating into the future. I am disputing the extrapolation, which has no rational basis. The only experience that is relevant here is the one that tells us that something unexpected always screws up long term predictions. Which makes trying to act today on a 50 year long prediction the triumph of fear over experience.

“Under your scenario there is too much risk of having to react from a position of weakness”

You have no basis for saying that. You have no basis for calculating any risks that far into the future. You want to act on faith. I want to wait until we at least have an informed guess.

a Reader: “By the time well-intentioned Western European people like Bjorn figure out what Islam is, it will be too late.”

Why don't you help me figure it out, then? Or do your beliefs about Islam depend on some kind of leap of faith that well-intentioned Western Europeans are unwilling to make?

"Why don't you help me figure it out, then? Or do your beliefs about Islam depend on some kind of leap of faith that well-intentioned Western Europeans are unwilling to make?"

Yes, most Western people, including yourself, are unwilling to confront what Islam really is. Maybe the US is safe for now, because Americans have a kind of civil religion that is just as fierce and fanatical in its way as Islam is in its way, but the rest of the West will not defend itself against Islam. But then again, maybe even the US will succumb, someday in the future. We certainly have enough apologists and fifth columnists busily working away to make North America safe for Islamization.

Look to India, the Balkans, the Middle East, Iran, Afghanistan to see what Islam does to non-Muslim cultures. The Copts, the Assyrians, the Phoenicians, the Tamizat peoples of North Africa -- these are all the indigenous peoples of those areas -- all have had their native identies replaced by the Arab imperialist movement known as "Islam." Did you know that most Christian Lebanese consider themselves to be "Phoenicians"? But the world calls them "Christian Arabs," much to their disgust. Why are they now called "Arabs" when they were Phoenicians for centuries? Because of the Arab Imperialist national political movement disguised as a "religion" called Islam.

This is the coming fate of the Scandinavians, the French, the British, the Dutch peoples. A handful of much-persecuted "Christian" people will carry on the indigenous traditons and culture, always under threat of extiction, kept around only to provide tourist attractions for wealthy North Americans interested in seeing the old culture of the "motherland."

In the future, people will say, "Oh, are there such things as people who speak Swedish left in the world?" the same way we now say, "Oh are there such things as people who speak Aramic left in the world?" or "Oh, are there such things as people who carry on the ancient culture of the Egyptian pharoahs left in the world?"

Take heed: Aramic was once the lingua franca of the entire, Christian Middle East. Now it is a nearly dead language. Egypt was once the pinnacle of civilization; now the people of the Pharoahs are persecuted, raped and immigrating away from their homeland in record numbers.

It is sublimely foolish and hubristic of Westerners to believe that the fate of the Hindu Indians, the Buddhists of Afghanistan, the Zoroastrians of Iran, the Orthodox Christians of Anatolia, Egypt, North Africa and the rest of the Middle East, does not also await the West.

Bjorn You say “I am disputing the extrapolation, which has no rational basis.” No, it has an extremely rational basis and ALL you are contesting are the odds of it happening. Your view at bottom is to do nothing becuase of uncertainty. My assumptions are clear as to demographics and currently expressed social values. I agree the end goal is not fixed and may shift. So what? All goals are, but that does not mean that one should not try and reach them and if possible effect the outcome.

Behold the Aya Sophia, built by Justinian the Great, the father of the Codex Justinian and an indispensable contributor to the civilizational code of the West. The greatest Church in Christendom for 1,000 years -- became a mosque, by violent conquest, in 1463, its gorgeous, centuries-old Byzantine mosaics plastered over for being "idolatrous", its ediface defaced by ugly minarets, its altar destroyed and replaced by hideous discs bearing Arabic inscriptions from the Quran:

http://www.patriarchate.org/ecumenical_patriarchate/chapter_4/html/hagia_sophia.html

How foolish we Westerners are to think that this fate does not await the great, thousand-year old churches, artwork and museums of Europe. This is the ultimate fate of St. Peter's, St. Paul's, Notre Dame. Just ask an Eastern Orthodox Christian, they will tell you.

Even if you are not a Christian, you must be something falling short of human not to mourn the ultimate fate of these great cultural beacons of Europe and the West.

Ali Sina says it well, as always:

http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina40721.htm

The world will comply gradually. Not because they would want to, but because they would have to. There would be no choice. Unable to defeat the enemy, more and more people will try to be appeasers and will not criticize Islam and its associated evil to avoid hurting the “sensibilities” of the Muslims. They will give up their freedoms, one political correctness at a time. The politicians will remain silent, for the fear of provoking the Muslims. To avoid unrest they will pass laws that will curtail the freedom of their citizens to criticize “religion” but in reality the intent is to stop the criticism of Islam. Other religions are accustomed to criticisms and have defended themselves fairly well. They are not asking for censorship; it is the Muslims that are asking it. Writers will find themselves facing lawsuits and even go to Jail for disparaging Islam and violating “the anti hate” laws. Criticizing Islam, which is but an ideology, will be equated as bashing its adherents and condemned. India is not a Muslim country, but it banned Salman Rushdie’s book, the Satanic Verses to appease her Muslim citizens. Indians can’t criticize Islam openly. The writers, the journalists, the publishers in the civilized world, or what would be left of it, will not dare to speak out their minds for the fear of being branded as “racists” and “xenophobes”. Those daredevils who defy the public opinion and disregard the etiquettes of political correctness will be forced to shut up for the fear of being assassinated or their children harmed. Women will be obliged “voluntarily” to cover themselves with Hijab to save their faces from acids being thrown at them. This kind of violence has already started in many cities in Europe , where European women are molested and harassed if they walk unaccompanied and without Islamic attire in the neighborhood of the Muslims. The world will recoil while the enemy will remain completely hidden and undefeatable. This will embolden the Muslims. They will be invigorated in their zeal to take over the world.

"Criticizing Islam, which is but an ideology, will be equated as bashing its adherents and condemned. India is not a Muslim country, but it banned Salman Rushdie’s book, the Satanic Verses to appease her Muslim citizens. Indians can’t criticize Islam openly. The writers, the journalists, the publishers in the civilized world, or what would be left of it, will not dare to speak out their minds for the fear of being branded as “racists” and “xenophobes”. Those daredevils who defy the public opinion and disregard the etiquettes of political correctness will be forced to shut up for the fear of being assassinated or their children harmed."

It is already happening, and the vitriol thrown at the Progress Party is very, very indicative of this trend. Carl Hagen, Me, Ali Dashti, Fouad, Ali Sina, Ibn Warraq -- we are the warners who are being ignored, laughed at, called names, called "wackos" -- but we are the ones who are right -- not you Anders, not you Bjorn. Time will bear us out.

Bjørn,
You said " The only experience that is relevant here is the one that tells us that something unexpected always screws up long term predictions."
What if the one, and only, unexpected thing that could screw up that long term prediction is the very thing Karina Udnæs is advocating?

No, I'm not actually in favor of banning Islam (in Norway or my native US) but I don't think the idea should be refused without thought and discussion.

I have no doubt that Christian Europe will eventually deal firmly and decisively with Islamic jihadists. Europeans are pretty good at making war. But the past 60 years of living under American military protection has made Europeans risk averse. It's time to water the tree of liberty.

"From time to time, the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots."
- Thomas Jefferson

I agree that US military welfare has made Europe weak. But wars are fought by young men -- who will fight against Islam for aging Europe?

45-year-old unionized solidiers from Belgium?

Bjorn:

OK, so you're oblivious. A=B not C and whatever nonsense.

You need to get the point. THESE PEOPLE ARE REAL! And the "peaceful Muslims" WILL NOT STAND AGAINST THEM!

YOU may know some "peaceful" Muslims, but how would they respond:

A: "If Norway becomes a Muslim Theocracy, that's OK with me!"

or

B: "NO! Norway is a diverse country, and as a Muslim I will fight my brothers if they attack Lutherans!"

What would they do? You lie to yourself if you think they'd take your side. Stop wasting everyone's time and start praying to Mecca!

Bjorn:

OK, so you're oblivious. A=B not C and whatever nonsense.

You need to get the point. THESE PEOPLE ARE REAL! And the "peaceful Muslims" WILL NOT STAND AGAINST THEM!

YOU may know some "peaceful" Muslims, but how would they respond:

A: "If Norway becomes a Muslim Theocracy, that's OK with me!"

or

B: "NO! Norway is a diverse country, and as a Muslim I will fight my brothers if they attack Lutherans!"

What would they do? You lie to yourself if you think they'd take your side. Stop wasting everyone's time and start praying to Mecca!

So torn.

The religious me says yes this presents the boundries of religious war.

The worldly me says yes this demands a retraction of beliefs that require killing those who won't convert. Only makes sense really.

A lot of you, I think, need to go back and read what you've written. If Muslims had a cry for anti-semitism, I would be crying it on their behalf. Shame on you for such an utter hatred of a religion that, as history confirms (by Christian and Jewish authors, no less), was spread mostly by love and tolerance of other people, religions, and cultures. Violence was used in self-defense. The actions of an extreme minority should not speak volumes for the belief of over 1 billion people. And if you think that Muslims are out to conquer Western civilization, let me quickly remind you about the crusades; a Christian movement to eradicate the world of Muslims. Yet still, the Muslims showed love as Saladin sent his own (much more highly educated) doctors to save the life of his foe, the brave Lionheart. And really, what was the basis of these crusades. Again, proven in history books, the "Muslim" empire was never extreme in its treatment of people of other religions. There were certain rulers, I agree, that were worse than others, but then again there always are. Now I must stop and think to myself for a moment, because I obviously am pleading to a crowd that, even with all its sentiments for free-thought and expression, will reject anything I offer as soon as they find out that I'm Muslim. Ahh, I was right wasn't I? Quite the same as a Jew walking into a neo-nazi meeting. Anti-semitism, racism, classism...the list goes on, but one thing remains common, it's all hatred. Kristiansand Progress Party, you have proven that you are no better than the neo-nazis that you loathe so much, who, remember, are also very "pious" Christians. You are no better than them at all.

I hope one day I may have the opportunity to come to Norway, and we might sit down over tea and discuss exactly what you think is so disgusting about me.

To all: I apologize if I haven't proven a thing, or at least invoked some sort of thought. I apologize for not having direct references, but please believe me, they exist. And I apologize to Kristiansand Progress Party for not disguising my Muslim identity. Let God decide our fates, and till then, enjoy each moment we have to share life, even with each other.

Thank you.

A Reader: “This is the coming fate of the Scandinavians, the French, the British, the Dutch peoples.”

Oh come on. I ask you to help me understand what Islam really is, and you reply by just restating your view that it is dangerous and will destroy us all. I'm not interested in that. I know what you believe, and restating it with stronger words adds nothing to that. Do you know why you believe these things? Then at least make an attempt to explain.

And don't hide behind the excuse that I don't want to believe. I already disagree with most of what Norwegians believe about Islam. The question is why I should now believe you.

Herbie: “No, it has an extremely rational basis and ALL you are contesting are the odds of it happening. Your view at bottom is to do nothing becuase of uncertainty. My assumptions are clear as to demographics and currently expressed social values. I agree the end goal is not fixed and may shift. So what? All goals are, but that does not mean that one should not try and reach them and if possible effect the outcome.”

I had hoped that as I pushed against the rational basis of your scenario, you would respond by defendings its specifics. But you only seem to get vaguer and vaguer.

So let me get specific for you. The Eurabia scenario is based on 1) various estimates of the number of Muslims and native Europeans who will live in Europe in 2050, and 2) a belief about how those Muslims will behave. The first estimate depends on whether Europe will choose to increase immigration to help preserve their welfare states. Believers in the scenario assume that they will, because the alternative, supposedly, is economic collapse. There's no basis for assuming that – it has to be argued. I'd like to see you or somebody else do that, and explain why we can rule out alternative solutions involving political change and economic reform.

The second point is little more than an assumption that if there are many Muslims in Europe, an increasing number of them will be Islamists, who will eventually form parties to introduce strict Islamic laws. For this to be true there must be a very fast recruitment to Islamism, and/or a very slow process of secularization or Westernization. Which do you believe it is and why? Is there nothing Europe can do to sufficiently slow the first process and speed up the other? Why not?

I would also like to hear you explain why you believe other factors can be discounted, specifically the ones I mentioned above: Political change, complexity, and the Big Unknown Factor.

Kathy K: “What if the one, and only, unexpected thing that could screw up that long term prediction is the very thing Karina Udnæs is advocating?”

It's certainly one of the things that would prevent that scenario. If there is no Islam in Europe, Islam can't take over Europe, at least not that way. But at a terrible price: The end of freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Only people who focus so much on the evil of Islam that they forget all other considerations would volunteer to do that based only on a completely worthless scenario.

“No, I'm not actually in favor of banning Islam (in Norway or my native US) but I don't think the idea should be refused without thought and discussion.”

And that's what we're doing here, discussing it. So far I've found nothing that speaks for this idea. The problem they want to solve is imaginary, and their solution would be the end of liberal democracy.

Matt: “You need to get the point. THESE PEOPLE ARE REAL! And the "peaceful Muslims" WILL NOT STAND AGAINST THEM!”

Okay, so you're with those who believe that restating a point in capital letters makes it more true? Yes, the Islamists are real. No, other Muslims aren't always doing much to fight them. This is a problem. But how big a problem is it, and what solutions are available? Some people here believe that it is a problem of almost apocalyptic proportions, that democracy is so inherently weak, and Islamism so inherently seductive, that not much can stand in its way, and that thus the only solution is to fight all Islam today. Do you agree, and if so why? (And I don't mean “please restate your view in clearer terms and with lots of emotive examples of what this Islamic future will look like”, I mean “why”.)

Disgusted: “Now I must stop and think to myself for a moment, because I obviously am pleading to a crowd that, even with all its sentiments for free-thought and expression, will reject anything I offer as soon as they find out that I'm Muslim.”

Maybe some will, but there are actually many different views here on Islam. And although most will disagree with your belief that Islam spread only through self-defence (that's a lot of self-defence over a lot of territory in a very short time), that doesn't make us racists or Islamophobes who have no interest in listening to you. Please keep that in mind.

Bjorn:

“I had hoped that as I pushed against the rational basis of your scenario, you would respond by defending its specifics. But you only seem to get vaguer and vaguer.
The Eurabia scenario is based on 1) various estimates of the number of Muslims and native Europeans who will live in Europe in 2050, and 2) a belief about how those Muslims will behave. The first estimate depends on whether Europe will choose to increase immigration to help preserve their welfare states. Believers in the scenario assume that they will, because the alternative, supposedly, is economic collapse. There's no basis for assuming that – it has to be argued. I'd like to see you or somebody else do that, and explain why we can rule out alternative solutions involving political change and economic reform.”

What an odd argument. The facts point all in one direction, yet you say there is no basis for assuming that [outcome]. Well all I can say is that my analysis is based on facts, as currently known, and your analysis is based on nothing but a fond hope.

“The second point is little more than an assumption that if there are many Muslims in Europe, an increasing number of them will be Islamists, who will eventually form parties to introduce strict Islamic laws.” Please point to any movement in Europe among Moslems, as distinguished from a lonely voice here and there, that suggest otherwise. The evidence is a) they are not integrating; b) the religious tenants do not encourage and, indeed, prohibit integration and c) the religious tenants are deemed a direct dictation from God. From that I extrapolate that unless the religious foundation is removed that my conclusion follows. I believe that explains what I believe and why.

The more interesting Q you ask is “Is there nothing Europe can do to sufficiently slow the first process and speed up the other?” I don’t know but am not hopeful. Any actions that Europe would take would be in the nature of forced social change which would run counter to European values and to the extent it has been tired has run into great resistance. What do you suggest.
You also say “I would also like to hear you explain why you believe other factors can be discounted, specifically the ones I mentioned above: Political change, complexity, and the Big Unknown Factor.” That would take too long. What I will say is that based on current knowable facts that action is required. Under your view it is not. I do not believe that inaction is a valid response. I do not wish to be controlled by events I believe that it is preferable to try and control events – especially when I perceive that they threaten me.

Disgusted in Toronto

Well said, but it does not address the point. The Crusades are not relevant. Yet most Moslems always state their position in terms of long past injustices as if that somehow give some support for what is happening today. Second you say “The actions of an extreme minority should not speak volumes for the belief of over 1 billion people” I am sorry it does. I have searched long and hard and find that there is no organized dissent in the Moslem community to these acts. Just the opposite that it seems to have the better support and almost no Moslem religious leader has condemned them in except very qualified terms. No one would be happier then me to be wrong.

Third you say"Muslim" empire was never extreme in its treatment of people of other religions.” That is a gross fabrication and flatly false. I will not even dignify it with a historical analysis except to say that the concept of Dhimmitude speaks volunes and othewise to your absurd assertion

Disgusted in Toronto I am seriously not trying to be sarcastic, but how can you say things like the "Muslim" empire was never extreme in its treatment of people of other religions.”, when under Islamic law, the penalty for conversion from Islam is death. And dhimmis are strictly forbidden to proselytize?

Sometimes people have a knack for asking exactly the right Q and in exactly the right way to frame the iissue. I submit that Matt from St. Paul, MN. did so. He has touched the kernel of this debate and all of the rest of the commentary -- including mine -- is just chatter making the posters feel good.

A lot of you, I think, need to go back and read as history confirms (by Christian and Jewish authors, no less), was spread mostly by love and tolerance of other people, religions, and cultures. Violence was used in self-defense.

Did you study history in Saudi Arabia? You may want to study again.

The following article seems to be on point here

http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php?...

If we turn the question around: What European institution do you think should be given the right and power to ban a religion, prosecute those who believe in and practice it, and sentence them to prison terms (or deportation, or maybe you prefer amputations)?

Even if the apocalyptics decsribed above approached reality, isn't this a case of the cure being worse than the disease?

I'm rather surprised to see right-leaning Americans (mostly) argue the abolishment of even the sorry excuse for a Bill of Rights most European countries have.

Jan as one US Supreme Court Jurist said "the Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact"

What happens to Islam in Europe depends wholly on the Islamists. If they stay on the jihadist path and create mass casualties then Islam may get banned and millions may be deported back to their native lands.

On the other hand, if Jihadists learned their lesson after the US "blowback" response to 9/11 maybe we can all get along.

I wouldn't bet money that the Jihadists have learned their lesson.

Unfortunately, Reid, we haven't learned our lesson, either.

Jan, some of us think you're already on that road.

There's still this fascination w/central planning we can't fathom.

Putting frankenreich in charge with the chocolate makers as the bureaucracy is pure folly.

That was me, too fast on the trigger.

For all: a good overview of the various issues confronting Islam and modernity “Modernization and Democratization in the Muslim World”
http://www.csis.org/

And a second study Civil Democratic Islam at http://www.rand.org/
“[P]arliaments and other democratic institutions are clear and obvious forms of disbelief, and of shirk, or setting up rivals to Allah (by ascribing legislative power to people) and an unforgivable sin, and a contradiction of the purpose of creation.

“The goal is to impose the correct order, that of Islam, over all others. The fight is for one purpose only and that is to establish ‘the religion of Islam in its totality . . . .

“Similarly, Hizb-ut-Tahrir describes itself as “a political party whose ideology is Islam, so politics is its work and Islam is its ideology . . . to restore the Khilafah [the Caliphate]” As concerns governance, “the constitution and canons must be
Islamic,” and it cannot be republican. The republican system is based on the democratic system, which is a system of Kufr (disbelief) . . . In [the Islamic system] the sovereignty is for the
Shari’a and not for the Ummah. The legislator is Allah. The Khaleefa only possesses the right to adopt rules for the constitution and canons from the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger. Therefore, it is not permitted to say that the system of Islam is a republican system or to talk of an Islamic republic
. . . .

Bjorn: You asked me why I thought Islam was dangerous to the West? Please read the London Spectator article (in full) posted by Herbie, written by Anthony Browne, the foreign affairs correspondent for The Times of London. Is Anthony Brown a "wacko"?

This article says it better than I could. Read it all. When you are done you may want to read up on some of the Muslim leaders that Mr. Browne quotes, as well as the seminal book for the anti-Islam movement, Ibn Warraq's brave and great, "Why I am Not a Muslim." I believe it is now available in a Norwegian translation.

Toronto: Muslims slaughtered 60-80 million people in India and enslaved half of Eastern Europe, Half of Africa and Half of India. The various Muslim empire(s) were built on a vicious slave trade that lasted three times longer than the Western slave trade and was only put to rest by the military forces of European colonial powers. Read some real history, not madrassah propaganda.

Check it out: http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/xstnc-6.html

a reader

You say to Toronto:” Muslims slaughtered 60-80 million people in India and enslaved half of Eastern Europe, Half of Africa and Half of India. The various Muslim empire(s) were built on a vicious slave trade that lasted three times longer than the Western slave trade and was only put to rest by the military forces of European colonial powers. Read some real history, not madrassah propaganda”

I think the issue is much more complicated then your post to Toronto suggests. I would maintain that at some point the past is the past or we never get to an end and simply get involved in cyclical history so to speak. For reasons that are not entirely clear to me the Moslems in Eastern Europe seem to have evolved differently and into a much more peaceful group until recently. I suspect that, in part, it was because they were a minority. Current immigrants are a different sort and the failure to demand integration coupled with current views of political correctness and multi-cultural crap have effectively fueled traditional Islamic thought. This when coupled with traditional Islamic thought has created a disaster. If you read some of the other articles I posted links to and the author’s suggestions you may become struck – as I have – with the fact that the issues that scare you and me are those espoused by basically all current Islamic thought and that secular and modern Islamics are in the distinct minority.

I believe that issues of tolerance and multi-culturalism are a disaster because there is NO reciprocal concept in Islamic thought and more than that it is actively discouraged. I am truly fearful that Europe does not or will not recognize this and deal with it directly. We in the U.S. started to do so. The 9/11 Report specifically identified not terrorism but Islamic Terrorism as the cause. In the U.S. that will now start a serious dialogue. Phrases like “racist” and “imperialistic causes” will no longer hold center -- as they still do in Europe. The U.S. is actually quite slow to anger but once a consensus is reached the U.S. will move as a society in that direction. If Europe disagrees, as they currently do, the U.S. will ignore them. For a good analysis of why see ”The Case For Sovereignty” by Jeremy Rabkin. That will leave Europe alone and to deal with Islam alone. Any benefit Europe will get from our actions will simply be incidental. I for one believe that the issues are not the U.S. vs. European views of how the world should evolve. We certainly have different views as to government and social policy. I do believe that the single issue is today Western Civilization vs. Islam and the failure of Europe to recognize that and confront it while Europe is still strong enough to do so will lead to its doom

"I believe that issues of tolerance and multi-culturalism are a disaster because there is NO reciprocal concept in Islamic thought and more than that it is actively discouraged."

Absolutely Herbie. Islam gives other religions and peoples exactly what is stated in the Koran, hadith and sharia; no more, no less. Unfortunately that is an intolerable apartheid-like lifestyle in today's terms.

Here’s a site in English, containing American Open University’s curriculum from the year 2000, which was used to teach Islamic students in Fresno, California: Fundamentals of Iman and Tauhid http://www.java-man.com/Pages/Tauhid/tauhid.html

“Whoever calls the people (and/or himself) to the following and obedience of another law other than the shari’a is a disbeliever and a mushrik.

The scholars of Usool-ul-Fiqh have all agreed on the axiom that “None has the right to legislate but Allah.” Don’t be fooled by their discussion of whether the intellect can arrive independently at the ruling in an issue. What they are talking about is the intellect - through training and other knowledge of the shari’a and its sources and ways - DISCOVERING or “uncovering” the eternal ruling of Allah in an issue, NOT legislating independently of Allah Most High.

Clearly secularism - which includes the rejection of the primacy of the shari’a as the ultimate source of law and which claims the right to leglislate independently of Allah general legislation which define obligation, prohibition, choice or relational rulings at odds with the order of Allah and His Prophet (sas) - is a rejection of the Lordship and the Deityship of Allah Most High. It is one of the actions of shirk akbar (greater polytheism) without doubt. There can be no distinction between the one who questions Allah’s oneness in His creation and the one who questions Allah’s oneness in His order. Both are taghoot, mushrik and in a state of rebellion against the worship of Allah Most High.

The tauhid of Allah in His Lordship is not complete with the mere acceptance of his creation and his decree. Rather, it must also include His oneness in legislating, judgeing and commanding and the acceptance of the guidance and laws brought from Him by Muhammad (sas). Detracting from Allah’s oneness in legislation is no different from detracting from His oneness in creation and omnipotence. The One who commanded us to accept His decree and omnipotence in all things is the same one who commanded us to refer and defer to His shari’a in all legal matters. He is the One who said: There is no sovereignty except Allah’s. He commands you not to worship any but Him. (Yusuf: 40)”

Now tell me about why people sould not be concerned that Islam is not a direct threat to western values . This is not some nut speakijng this is orthodox Islamic thought.

What would happen if a democratic country gets a Muslim population of 51%? Should there be a vote for introducing or changing the state religion?

The main problem I see with Islam is that there is no distinction between state and religion. Such a system would require two states in the state. One for muslims with Sharia law and one for non-muslims with civil law.

Kato
Islamics have refused to sgin onto to the UN Declaration of Human Rights which includes the right of free beleif. Under Islam soeone who converts or disparages Islam is considered an apostate and the sentence is death.

As noted in a recent article The West "should take off the gloves and demand equal rights in the cultural and religious relations between countries, similar to its demands for a "trade balance." America should not allow Saudi Arabia to preach Islam and build mosques on US soil with 15 of its citizens committing 9/11 unless Saudis accept religious freedom and the building of Churches and synagogues inside Saudi Arabia. Saudis can't have it both ways and America should protect its culture better."

Those who think that Islam was spread through peace are all deceived. Read Craig Winn's proof at http://www.prophetofdoom.net for undeniable proof that islam was spread through plunder, rape, conquest, terror and murder.

It proves using only Islamic scriptures that Muhammmed, prophet of islam, is a very very bad person.

Islam should be banned in America because:
1. Islam is not a religion. It is a political or military organization that is corrupt.
2. It is a corrupt criminal organization subject to the RICO laws.
a. The Quran orders Muslims to kill, extort, blackmail, etc.
b. The Quran refuses to adhere to secular government laws (sedition)
c. The Quran orders war, invasion, and total conquest of all non-believers.
3. RICO laws have been used to stop the Mafia, The Arian Nation, The Klu Klux Klan, and the Nazis'.
4. Islam resembles fascist Nazis and totalitarianism - not a religion.
5. Islam is seditious. It advocates the overthrow of the government.
6. Islam advocates the overthrow of government by force and violence.
7. Sedition and treason are illegal in America.
8. The failure of good Muslims to object or organize and stop bad Muslims indicts the whole Islamic movement.
9. If Islam is not military, it is a political organization.
10. Islam will never report its extorted "Jizya" (religious tax) as political income.
11. Islam is always at war.
12. Islam is now involved in about 45 wars around the globe.
13. Islam is the aggressor in most of its current wars.
14. Islam was first at war with America in 1786 (Tripolitan Wars)
15. America formed its first Navy to fight the Muslim Tripolitan Wars in 1802.
16. The Pasha Yusuf Karamanli of Tripoli declared war on the U.S. in 1801.
17. The 1785 Muslims of Algiers, Tripoli, Morocco, and Tunis hijacked, ransomed, & murdered.
18. The 1785 Muslims read and followed the Quran.
19. The assassin of Robert Kennedy in 1968 read and followed the Quran.
20. Muslims read, believed, and followed the Quran, since 1785, in murdering hundreds of Americans!
21. Innocent Americans have been murdered by Quranites in airplanes, embassies, airports, ships, tall buildings, and shopping centers.
22. Islam's objective is a total Islamic State ruled not by law but by an illegal Islamic Theocracy.
23. Islam is more dangerous and more harmful to Americans than the Mafia, Klu Klux Klan, Arian Nation, or the Nazis.
24. The Quran and Islam are illegal in America, should be banned, and be brought to justice by RICO actions.
25. America should not have to pretend that Islam is a religion while waiting for Islam to break the back of slow to anger American politicians!
26. If Allah is God, we know that God would not order the spilling of innocent blood.
27. Any sect or cult that pretends to kill innocents for God is criminally stupid and legally insane!
28. Real religions don't become governments, cause invasions, insurrections, and have under cover operatives world wide.
29. Real religions don't encourage blackmail, hijacking, ransom, extortion, assassination, and wholesale murder.
30. Islam has used such means to wipe out Christians by the thousands in the Sudan.
31. Islam has used such means to become the majority religion in Indonesia.
32. Islam is not a religion, is always at war, never stops its activists, and is wholly corrupt.
33. Islam should be banned in America!
(On 1/10/02, as reported by the Associated Press and FreeRepublic.Com, 130 Muslim clerics and scholars met in Lebanon and agreed that (1)” suicide operations carried out by the holy warriors against the Zionist enemy are legitimate and are based on God’s book (the Quran) and the teachings of his Prophet Muhammad”, (2) “they constitute the highest rank of martyrdom and lead to (winning) God’s satisfaction and paradise”, and, (3) they “rejected the U.S. labeling of Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad as terrorist, saying “this resistance is the most sacred and noblest phenomenon in our contemporary history.”)

Reading this discussion I have not learnt anything about Islam.

I have, on the other hand, learnt quite a lot about how it is possible to twist and twirk historical facts (and some less factual claims) and how it is possibly to pretend to be defending freedom at the same time as one in reality is attacking it. It is, sadly, not a lesson I have not already learnt from history books.

Several posters have been talking about a scary Eurabia - where I am, supposedly, belonging to a minority of people, a minority that will probably refer to themselves as "Norwegians" or perhaps "Vikings" (a more fitting equivalent to Phoenicians), but by the rest of the world will be considered to be "Christian Arabs", or perhaps, more true to the civil religion of Norway "Socialdemocratic Arabs".

Supposedly I should look to India, the Balkans, the Middle East, Iran or other countries to discover how native identies have been replaced by Arab imperialist movements.

Firstly, considering the destinies of these peoples, I would perhaps also be tempted to studying the destinies of, say, the Scandinavians - where is our distinct culture, where is our Pagan religion? Now, that is a history about spreading a religion with a sword in one hand and a holy book in the other. Maybe I should also consider taking a look at the histories of the Finnish, of the Goths, of the Incas, of the Champa people or of the Muslims of Srebrenica. Whatever happened to their identity?

Historically I would discover, obviously, that imperialsim is not a game played solely by Muslims. How can I judge Islam as a religion by picking certain historical ingredients when I at the same time do know that one of the traditions the Progress Party states they build their program on - Christianity - was spread in the same way.

(A claim that Islam was mainly spread by the sword - for instance in India - is also quite doubtful, see Richard M.Eaton:"Approaches to the Study of Conversion to Islam in India" in "Approaches to Islam in Religious Studies", Oneworld Oxford 1985/2003)

Secondly, the idea of Islam as Arab imperialism today is palpably absurd. Only one fifth of Muslims are Arabs, the largest Muslim country is Indonesia and the largest Muslim groups in Norway are not Arabs, but rather Pakistani and Kurdish. Both of these groups have a culture that is far from erased by the Arabization in early Islam.

Thirdly, we already do see the future in your imagined Eurabia. Muslims, in Norway and other European countries, unlike the Muslims in your scenario have different political ideas and goals. In Norway we have Muslims voting for the Christian Democrats, for the Social Democrats, for the Socialists, for the Conservatives and even for the Progress Party. No islamist parties have surfaced, but some day they might. If they do, no evidence whatsoever suggests that they will receive many votes, at least not if they stick to fanatical ideas. The majority of Muslims have still not been driven into the arms of fanatics, even if both the fanatics themselves and quite a few anti-Islamists and Western politicians seem to try as hard as they can to achieve this.

There is of course one country where the Islamists - or rather a party with Islamist roots - quite recently one the elections. That country was the European Muslim country Turkey. Some might think it too be scary, but Turkey is still friendly to the west, and the country has been conducting several democratic reforms since the Welfare and Justice-Party (AKP) got into power.

In fact the "Islamists" of Turkey today seem to be a force able to bring much-needed change to that country while the secular Kemalists more and more often look like true reactionaries. The road is still long, but with AKP an Islamist equivalent to the Socialdemocrats have surfaced.

Reading this discussion I am pleased to see the number of open eyes out there. Except for a few posters, notably the one just before this one, managed to read the entire post (or he claimed to) and still not be convinced that Islam is a threat to western values.

That is truly being blind.

Look at the muslim countries in the world. There is not many places where countries are bordering non-muslims countries, where there is not some kind of conflict. Noone said it better than Fuad Al'Razi 2004-07-20 05:23

"As an ex-Muslim, it is of the utmost importance that Norway recognize the existential threat to the Norwegian population, civilization, and culture. The goal of Islamist theology is the conquest and conversion of the population into a serf society under the control of Islam.

Islam is not a religion, it is a political totalitarian fascist ideology with the goal of complete domination. In essence, become Muslim, or die. "

Is Islam a threat to Western values? In some ways it obviously is, something I never have denied. The Western societies of today are secular in nature, Islam is not.

Islamism is also, obviously, a threat. The major reason for this is, however, the willingness to use terror against Western countries by some extremist groups and not the wish that some Islamist groups have to establish theocratic governments, since this wish rarely exceeds the Muslim world.

A greater threat to Western values, however, are Westerners willing to abandon them. Religious freedom, freedom of speech and so on are central values of the secular Western democracies. On this thread people want to sacrifice those values on an altar built on criticizing Islam for lacking those very things. Now, is not that ironic?

Øyvind

Hi Phil,
thanks for listing down your 32 reasons for implementing item 33 on your list. However, sad to say that there is no way that it is going to be implemented in America as your country is truly a democracy. With that, it is also the source of your greatest strength as well as your greatest weakness. Take a look at China, where there is no democracy, an evil like islam will never prevail in its society because their government, using their enormous political power, will crush islam to a pulp if they try anything funny there. FaLun Gong, was one of the fastest growing ideology in China until the government discovered their political agenda. What happened after that was a total ban on the ideology, including all publications of the ideology and prosecution of their followers.
Over here in Singapore, it is not as extreme, but we do have measures to keep check on islam. Profiling, having secret security agents monitor the preaching in mosque/schools and the internal security act are just some of them.

so i heard that the fascist muslim Qazi Hussain Ahmed the leader of the islamofasict group jamaat is coming to Norway

some info about him

Qazi had said once that JAMAAT comes to power in Pakistan, he will abolish the voting rights of women and minorities. Only the Muslim men can participate in voting or standing for elections. When I asked the proof from Hadiths, he had quoted many Hadiths in support of that.

Once the Jamaat comes to power, the minorities will be induced(forced) to become Muslims either by monetary or psychological factors. JI is already equating the India with Hindus so that the Hindus of Pakistan will be forced to become Muslims. This was very successful strategy during the Babri Masjid riots. We ordered the destruction of the Hindu family property too. But our main aim was to destroy the Hindu temples. We wrote the JI pamphlets that destroying each pagan temple make a Muslim move closer to heaven of Allah. We used the Hadiths in all the pamphlets. The same way every Muslim should take upon himself to destroy the Hindu temples in Pakistan.

We are impressed with the Taliban on the women issue, minorities issue and law and order issue. Mullah Omar is a great friend of Qazi. Omar had visited his house many times. In the tentative talks, we had decided to form union of Pakistan and Afghanistan once the right conditions are set in Pakistan.

Little bit of terror had to be applied to the heart of Hindus and Christians. I will give you a best example. The portions now constitute Pakistan had 25% Hindu population before Independence. After independence lot of Hindus migrated to India. Yet after the migration, Pakistani Hindu population was 15%. Do you know what is the percentage now? It is less than 1%. How was this made possible? That is purely because of the terror of the partition. That terror forced the Hindus who remained in Pakistan to become Muslims. Pure and simple.

He had the habit of drinking camel urine and camel milk early in the morning. He replied that it is Islamic practice that is supported by Prophet Mohammad (PBUH). I was astounded. But Qazi explained to me that it is true. He told me three or four Hadiths in which the camel urine and camel milk drinking is suggested. So Qazi wanted to drink the camel urine and camel milk along with the Sheik.

Hence the reintroduction of slavery in Pakistan is one of the future plans of Jamaat. All the captured Hindu Indians and Srilankans will be made slaves to work for Pakistani Muslims. Every God abiding Pakistani Muslim will get slaves once we conquer India. Slavery is Islamic.

One of Qazi's relatives wanted to become a Hindu. Qazi got to know of this and called him and threatened him dire consequences. That relative did not become a Hindu. Quran and Hadith clearly say the punishment for abandonment of Islam is death.

SALIENT POINTS OF THE POLICIES AND VIEWS OF THE JAMAAT (AS INDICATED IN THE INTERVIEW)

http://www.saag.org/papers/paper76.html

1 - A woman has no right to an independent life outside her family. She can be educated, but not to enable her to compete with men. She has no role to play in war or in politics. On coming to power, the JI would abolish the voting rights of women and the religious minorities. However, this would not now be announced as a policy lest women and the minorities, who have these rights presently, vote against the JI.

2 - The JI would levy a special tax ("jizya") on the religious minorities in order to force them to embrace Islam. Both monetary and psychological pressures would be used to make the religious minorities become Muslims.

3 - After the destruction of the Babri Masjid in India in December,1992, the JI was actively involved in destroying the Hindu temples in Punjab and Sindh. It ordered the destruction of Hindu family property also. For each Hindu temple destroyed, a Muslim moves one step closer to Allah. Babar was a true Muslim and,hence,destroyed the Ram temple in Ayodhya. Muslims in Pakistan and India should emulate his example.

4 - Under the JI, the present Pakistani Constitution would be abrogated and a Caliphate set up in Pakistan. It would be ruled by a presidium consisting of the senior leaders of the JI and the chiefs of the armed forces. The Qazi would be designated as the Caliph. The Sharia would be its Constitution and only those who had studied in religious madrassas would be recruited to the judiciary.

5 - The JI is highly impressed by the policies of the Taliban on women's role, rights of religious minorities and law and order and would emulate them. The JI has already reached an agreement in principle with the Taliban that once Islamic rule has been set up in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan would form an Islamic Union.

6 - The JI's motto is permanent jihad to set up an Islamic empire extending from Myanmar to Afghanistan and from Sri Lanka to Tajikistan. In this permanent jihad, the JI would use all tactics including terrorism in the kafir-controlled areas and negotiations in the Muslim-controlled areas.

7 - Once the JI captures power in Pakistan and conquers India, bringing Sri Lanka and Myanmar into the Islamic empire should not be difficult. The faith of the Buddhists in their religion is not as strong as that of the Hindus in theirs and, hence, with a little pressure, it should be easier to make the Buddhists of Sri Lanka and Myanmar embrace Islam.

8 - The Muslim rulers of India could not make the Hindus embrace Islam because they depended on Hindu advisers and bureaucrats for running the administration and did not use force for conversion. Once the JI conquers India, it would declare India an Islamic Republic, abolish the voting rights of non-Muslims and use terror, if necessary, to force the non-Muslims embrace Islam.

9 - It was through the skilful use of terror that the percentage of Hindus in Pakistan's population was brought down from 15 per cent in 1947 to less than one per cent at present. Similar terror would be used against the Hindus, Christians and other non-Muslims in India.

10 - The JI does not consider the over 120 million Muslims of India as true Muslims because they have voluntarily chosen to live under non-Muslim rule and eat the foodgrains produced by the Hindu farmers. For a true Muslim, it is better to live under a bad Muslim ruler than under a good non-Muslim ruler. The Hindu farmers offer their harvests to their Gods before selling or eating them. How can a true Muslim eat foodgrains that have already been offered to a God other than Allah?

11 - It is for these reasons that the JI is not bothered if the Indian Muslims die in communal riots. However, despite this, the JI considers those Indian Muslims who support Pakistan and work and die for the glory of the Islamic Ummah as true Muslims.

12 - Islam does not prohibit slavery so long as one treats slaves with kindness. Slavery is still in vogue in Saudi Arabia. On coming to power, the JI would, therefore, re-introduce slavery and lay down that only non-Muslims could be used as slaves. All the non-Muslims of India, Sri Lanka and Myanmar, who refused to embrace Islam, would be declared as slaves and sold by the State to the Muslims, who can afford them. They would be emancipated whenever they agree to embrace Islam.

13 - The Hindus are a corrupting influence in Saudi Arabia and other countries of the Gulf. They should not be allowed to work in those countries. It is outrageous on the part of the Governments of Yemen and Qatar to have allowed the construction of Hindu temples in their territory. It is even more outrageous that some Muslims of Qatar visit the Hindu temple, that a member of the royal family attended the inauguration of the temple and that one of the powerful members of the Qatar royal family is a devotee of the Hindu God Ayyappan. If Islam is to be purified, all such Hindu influences should be eradicated.

14 - The JI would make the conversion of a Muslim to another religion a criminal offence punishable with death for the Muslim who embraces the other religion as well as for the person who converted him.

15 - Religion is far superior to science. Whatever man needs to know is already contained in the holy Quran and the Hadiths. It is not, therefore, necessary for man to know more.

16 - Science sows the seeds of doubt in the minds of Muslims regarding the validity of the holy Quran as the word of God and, hence, should not be encouraged.

17 - Photography is the greatest evil produced by science. The Taliban has already banned it in Afghanistan and the JI would do so in Pakistan except for use in passports and identity cards. (Comments: The Taliban and the JI consider photography as evil because, according to them, it has made men and women aware of the physical attraction of each other)

18 - All the existing languages of Pakistan would be banned and only Arabic, the divine language, would be allowed to be used. The JI is already heavily funding the spread of the knowledge of Arabic in Pakistan, India and Bangladesh.

i hope you people will make a protest against him

i wish i could but i am in the Netherlands, and he wanted to come here because he was invited by the fascist AEL islam group, but after it was clear what kind of fascist he is he wasn't allowed any more to come here, same goes for Belgium.

I hope you people still have some viking warrior blood in you and fight against the new fascism!

Islam, Religion or Ideology?

I'm sorry that most of the people who has submitted their view's to this page about this topic has not read what I wrote in the paper "Norge i Dag", "Islam, Ideology or religion?" Maybe some of you did read it, but misunderstood the contents? Those who have read my statements in that article, realise that I did not call for a ban on Islam, but I did question that a ban might be in order based on that Islam is an ideology disguised as a religion. It is thus a topic for discussion! Islam has been given the "quality" mark/brand religion, but the ideology in the Koran in which Islam implements through it’s followers is as dangerous as the Ideologi in Mein Kampf which led to the Nazism implemented by the Nazis.

I'll explain why this is a fact: "Mein kampf" elevates the white (Arian) rase above all other races, and states that all other races should be killed. The Koran elevates the Muslims above all other people, and states in verse after verse that the Muslims should kill the "unbelievers" and all those (including Christians and Jews) who do not submit to Islam. I can point to dozens of examples in the Arabic Koran (It is the Arabic Koran that is used in mosks all over the world, including in Europe and USA, and not the Koran that has been translated into English or to one of the other European languages. This is an important point, as the "foreign" translations are much "kinder" and not so incriminating as the original Arabic version). It is true that “Mein Kampf” is legally sold on the Norwegian market, but if any organisation or gathering of people begins preaching “Mein Kampf” in public in Norway as if the contents of that book are “true”, they break several laws in Norway, including §135a, §142, § 227, og §231 and they are arrested. When Muslim Leaders teach the Koran at public gatherings in Norway, like in Mosks, they also break the same laws as the people who preach from “Mein Kampf”, but these religious leaders will not be arrested, because of that they are protected by the principle of “religious freedom”. This is why I ask if it is time to re-evaluate our religious freedom principles, so that our principles do not protect criminal acts in the name of religion. I also believe that this is a fair question!

In my article, in which Norwegian papers have extracted certain elements from and re-written them, I only questioned whether Islam should be banned or not. Why do I ask this question? Because I have read both "Mein Kampf" and the "Koran", and I saw the same similarities in these books as Winston Churchill saw and expressed worry over for over 60 years ago. Winston Churchill stated that "Mein Kampf" was the new "Koran" for faith and war. 60 years ago, also the Great Mufti of Jerusalem, who himself was a muslim religious leader agreed with Churchill, and said that there were many similarities between Islam and Nazism.

In Norway we have a saying: “Never Again the 9th of April”, as this was the day that Norway was invaded in 1940 by the Nazis.

Karina Udnæs

Reference: Islam should be banned in America.
I had a dream. I came into a dark room which had a table in the center and on the table were 5 bottles. A note left on the table said: "one bottle is poison, the others are honey". A voice said: "you may not leave the room until you drink one potion!" Another voice said: "We have been working on these potions for almost 2000 years!" Yet a third voice spoke up and explained: "each bottle has a major religion printed on the bottom which can only be viewed after you have consumed a potion (Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, or Christianity), but you can select only one bottle". In my dream I began to tremble and sweat. I spoke aloud saying: "Will you grant me just one clue so that my life will be saved?" And, the answer came: "Yes, the clue is this - one potion was made by a 50 year old pedophile who married a 6 year old girl and had sexual relations with her. He believed in multiple wives and killing anyone who refused to believe as he did. He believed in slavery and in there being no need for secular government since his writings explained everything. He said he was a man of peace yet for 1500 years not a decade has gone by when his believers were not a war. But looking at the outside of the bottles will reveal only that they all look alike. You must risk death to find out what is on the inside!" An earthquake shook my bed. Thunder and lightning snapped me out of my dream state. I shook myself awake. Then a familiar voice was heard leaving my room: "you still must choose only one! Which will it be?"
The American Constitution protects the free exercise of religion, not a lottery of death! Only when we understand that Islam is a death lottery for all who drink of it will we redefine it as a mere cult instead of a religion. Cults are not protected by the Constitution.

Excellent website shows what Islam is all about: http://www.faithfreedom.org

Hello Callistos Singapore,

Selamat pagi Callistos, apa kabar. Saya gembira sekali berketahuan pemerintah singapura memakai beberapa cara meneliti aktivitas para penganut agama islam !!!...........MAJULAH SINGAPURA !!!

Glad the singaporean government is on their toes watching those seditious muslim minority in singapore. I can't blame the singaporeans , in a way they ressemble israel , a tiny island of democracy and freedom of thought surrounded by
muslim countries like malaysia and indonesia rife with muslim radicalization.

Regarding the incredibly naive ( or i suspect extreme leftist position) of our perennial apologist Mr. Øyvind/Øvil-Wind of Bergen obviously is enamoured with some mysterious agenda hiterto unknown to me or others as to compel him to entertain such ridiculous opinion regarding the innocuous nature of Islam in face of overwhelming evidences to the contrary. He argues that there is no arabization or bedouinization of cultures tainted by islam by claiming that the majority muslims are indonesian, kurds, pakistanis etc.who have their own native cultures intact. Such statements merely illustrate that educated people can be grossly and indecently ignorant about the true nature of things especially if they are esconced comfortably in their arm chair in Bergen, Norway and then proceed to write spurious essays purporting to know the world and non western people through the myopic eyes of westerndom LOL.

ISLAM IS AN INSTRUMENT OF ARAB-BEDOUIN HEGEMONY . TO BUTTRESS MY POINT I REFER YOU TO THIS EXCELLENT ESSAY WHICH WILL IMMEDIATELY REFUTE THE
Øyvinian FALLACY :

http://aididsafar.com/

The foregoing essay shows how Mohammad the brigand had cleverly contrived Islam as a theocratic sociopolitical system that ensures the perpetuation of arab/bedouin ideals in all populations vanquished or tainted by this desert blight.In malaysia for example muslims vie among themselves to emulate arab culture in speech, dress, and vocabulary so that the more pious and islamized they become, the more they become an arab clone. They say that language mirrors the soul of a race ( malays are fond of saying that - BAHASA CERMIN BANGSA ).The malay language has been thoroughly arabized to the extent that there are oftentimes an arab word for every malay word. As a polyglot who speaks arabic, malay, indonesian and persian also...i am in an ideal position to appreciate the extent of arabization of these cultures. In malay a simple word like "erti" ( to understand) has an arabic "faham" so that a malay scholar wanting to appear erudite may well compose a letter replete with arabized malay wordage to the point that an arab can pretty much comprehend the gist of the letter without knowing much of the malay language.The superior roman culture of yore had done something similar in imposing latinesqe onto english...thus : he has a kingly face sounds 'rustic' as opposed to 'he posseses a royal visage' ( pretty scholarly huh?). The arabization of persian and persian culture is even more complete. If you care to look at a persian dictionary you will see that there are virtually arab cognates for every native persian/farsi word ( persian is an indo european language more akin to sanskrit, english, norwegian etc)...so that Doctor = Pezeshk ( native persian cf. physician via greek physikos) = Tabib (arab cognate)..so that the ayatollah(shadow of god, they are always in the shadow are'nt they LOL )Ruhollah Khomeini when delivering a speech in Qom speaks in the patois of the mullahs which is arabized persian or persianized arabic !!!. The Pakistanis who are really arabized/islamized native indians of the indian subcontinent are not in any better stead in terms of being free from the parasitic arabic elements inherent in islamization of their people and culture. Urdu is really Hindi written with arabic script and infused with an unhealthy dose of arabic vocabulary . Pakistanis are the various races of the indian subcontinent infused with an unhealthy dose or araby. Similar linguistico-culture 'wars' can be said of the norwegians, swedes and danes. The norwegians have historically resented the swedes and danes for their historical dominance and courtely impositions ...to the point that after the landsmal/boksmal schism and the birth of nynorsk that the norwegian government has to standardized nynorsk in pronunciation and all the appurtenances of linguistic nationalisma to assert 'norwegianess' ( or as i comically characterize norweejah in my erstwhile posts tee heeeeeeee). Mea culpa..i digress.....this is not a good comparison the scandinavians have their little tiff but in the case of the vanquished people of islamdom we have the wholesale embracing of arab language, norms, values and culture ...much worse the whole sale embraceing of the arab-religion =islam and its central core of hegemony,bigotry,racism , misogyny and all the glories of THEOCRATIC NEO-NAZI FASCISM.....ALL OF WHHICH OUR FRIENDLY MR. EVILWIND/Øyvind = NOAM CHOMSKIAN CLONE EXTRAORDINAIRE (!) HAS SORELY MISSED.

post-scriptum: Mr. ØvilWind if you wish to evolve into your higher alter ego of Lucky Stream ,perhaps a regimen of extra spicy Kim Chee should be in order . The potent capsicum content of kim chee should immediately cure the leftist and apologist virus that has been infecting you LOL ( i am engaging in korean culinary hegemony tee heeeee :) ..........)

Kim Sook-Im
Your favorite angel of truth and justice

ملاك الحقيقة و العدل من كوريا

한국에서 진실 그리고 공정의 천사

engel van waarheid en rechtvaardigheid van Korea

真相和正義韓國天使

He argues that there is no arabization or bedouinization of cultures tainted by islam by claiming that the majority muslims are indonesian, kurds, pakistanis etc.who have their own native cultures intact.

Could you please point out where I argue this? If I were to argue anything in that connection at all, I would argue that the highly reactionary doctrine of wahhabism has spread from Saudi-Arabia as a result of oil money, and that quite a few Muslims in that manner have been not Arabized, but Saudi-Arabized.

Furtheron, Kim Sook-Im you pretend that I think there are no problems within Islam.

I've repeatedly stated that there are - both here and other places. The traditional position of women is definitely one of them.

Kim Sook-Im, a word of advice: Try to argue against things I have said instead of things you have dreamt that I say. Try making your own points instead of just conjuring up silly stories about and yet sillier nicknames for those who challenge your opinions.

Then - let's get back to Singapore, shall we?

Each year the good folks over at Freedom House publishes a report about democracy in the world. It is quite a depressive read, and if you say that Muslim countries are mostly doing quite poorly you are absolutely right. Knowing that also helps us explaining a couple of things.

But oh - the weakness of reason.

Anyway, the worst example anyone can dig up is probably Saudi Arabia (the other day I read the word Saudi and the word election in the same article, and it's really quite hilarious). They get the worst points you can get on both political rights and civil liberties. 7 and 7.

What about Singapore? Well, they score a 5 and a 4. Better. They're classified as "partly free". So is Malaysia - with the same score. And Indonesia, too, and Indonesia scores 3 and 4. So, "A tiny island of democracy and freedom of thought", you say? It's more like an island of capital, if you ask me.

Let me quote Freedom House:

Citizens of Singapore cannot change their government democratically. [...] The government has used a strict vetting process to prevent any real competition for the office. The current president, S. R. Nathan, a PAP veteran and former ambassador, won the 1999 election by default after the Presidential Election Commission barred three other candidates on the grounds that they lacked either the requisite competence or integrity.

Well, that's not Israel (1 and 3). Their democracy is real. It has its flaws, for sure, but Israelis can definitely change their goverment democratically.

As we talk about democratic islands, though, another country comes to mind. We have to go to another continent. We have to go to Africa. A depressing continent when it comes to political freedoms, I mean - look at this map. An awful "not free"-colour goes through Africa like a plague. And the rest is mostly "partly free".

Oddly one of the few "free" countries in Africa is a Muslim country. It's Mali, scoring a 2 and 2.

As a matter of fact, the only continental African country scoring higher is South Africa. Will you now start naming Mali an "island of democracy"? Why do I have doubts that you will?

By the way, Senegal - with a 2 and 3 (same as Brazil) - isn't doing bad either. And Turkish Cyprus, with a 2 and 2, scores the same as your very own Korea.

These are the facts, Kim Sook-Im. I'm sure you can have fun with them, if you for one second manage to tear yourself away from Aidid Safir.

(By the way, I can't get his website up right now, but last time I checked, Aidid - a Muslim authoring the book "Arab conspiracy against Islam" is quite an interesting fellow. Those wanting to read his ideas can find them right here).

Once - amidst your usual mistakes, of course - you wrote these words: "Islam is not monolithic".

Yet you insist to treat Islam as if it was. Why?

Øyvind

P.S: And by the way I'm a supporter of "samnorsk". That's my very own little fairytale world.

Barking dogs are not biter. No force on earth can ban islam. This is fact. Example of Russia there, they tries and broken. Is there any other country dare to do ???

First of all I am a muslim.

Secondly, you people do not judge Islam by what it teaches. You judge it by a bunch (pretty big) of maniacs who follow what they think is Islam.
Many muslims (a majority) aren't terrorists. Islam doesn't teach violence.

By the way:
Check out www.free-minds.org

salaam just passing, pakistan,

Honey thanks for your comments...no..you are not quite a muslim, or at least you are nominally a muslim, or else you do not know your own 'holy book'...i refer you to the Quran al Kareem and see for yourself if it is indeed not a manifesto of terror and hate !...the source of all the misery that has afflicted l billion human beings and the rest of the world:

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Quran.htm

( the essence of the violence has been distilled, the rest are folklores and fairy tales)

Shukran

Sister Ayesha Kim

الأخت عيشة كيم

너의 한국 자매 김

Islam is an anti-human ideology that seeks to annihilate all civilizations on the planet and install itself as the only permissible way of life on earth. What is so difficult to understand about that? They (the muslims) have said as much, they have screamed it into our faces "We will kill you!! We will destroy you!!". And have acted out their words. 9/11, Theo, beheading westerners and asians, raping and gang-raping western and asian girls. What more do we need? To wait till they are sawing off our necks before we croak "Oh yes. So you mean what you said after all. You want to kill us all off."

WAKE UP GUYS!!!! These guys can't be reasoned with. They can't be pacified. And they understand only force. Give them no quarter. Stand up to them and drive them out of the country.

Lol, every time i come across site like this i must laugh, you all are talking about moslim extremists and so on ... how about christian extremists?

they dont exist?

USA is full of them ( i dont think all americans are like that ), remember oklahoma?

Not moslim but christian did that or i was in coma?

After ages of killing and discriminating them you people are wondering why they hate us?

There is name for that; hypocrits

regards

I am not laughing and in the long run not any moslems are going to be either:

Uh a christian did oklahoma bombing ? What made him so Christian ? "though shalt not kill" Killing may be necesary but it´s not christian, not doing God a favor, no 72 virgins waiting, no martyrhood.

But moslems now that´s a different story, they were commanded to kill and terrorize. Mohammed realized after trying 13 years in Mecca to get his crowd above 80 people, that his alter ego Allah had to come up with something new. And thus warfare, intimidation, terror, oppression, cruelty, theft and barbarity, hatemonging, licentiousness legitimized, 72 virgins for dying in the cause of allah, besides the usual stuff with threats and promises of heaven and hell.

If he had not used those tools people would have been laughing till this day, actually forgot all about him, but these tools has always worked just see Nazism and communism, mythology coupled with hate and honour, and pure brutality and punishment against those who dare to quack differently.

Thus you now have 1 bio. oppressed and intimidized and brainwashed sheeps in the fold with 200 mio wolfs making sure they stay inside andd trying to get more in.

There is nothing to laugh about, it´s tradegy.

And besides normal terror attacks, honour killings, killings of critics and apostates, stoning of people, killings of kaffirs etc. quite an amount yearly. There are now terrorists looking for a way to kill as many of us as possible with poisons, hoping for the restoration of the khalifah, first step to continue jihad vs the world around.

So how many will killed in the name of allah this year ? vs how many in the name of all the other religions / cults excepted. ?

Mohammed´s techniques may have worked so far, but right now moslems are doing something extremely foolish, and it will backfire on you big time, any decent person cannot let this happen in his/hers name.

Nothing to laugh about, not even the incredible childishness of the cult of islam.

Lmao dude

this is what they call "demonizing" and "ignorant"

get a grip man

hate will kill you eventualy ( if some pissed off moslim dont get ya first ), spread love not hate man wtf is wrong with you?

now you can remove this post, it is up to you

regards

As a catholic christian, whose origin is from a predominantly islamic region I have first hand experience of the extent of terror and pain Islam causes on non-muslims. Nothing can appease Islam, short of conversion and complet submission. The concept of moderate and fundamentalist Islam is a myth. The current plight of coptic egyptians, sudanese non-muslims,indonesians, middle eastern christians and the historical suffering of iran's zerostarians, India's Hindus inflicted by adherents of Islam was enough to warn any people with principle. I think it is high time all non-muslims transcend their religous, racial, cultural and geographic divide and challenge the destructive ideology of Islam in unison.

Ermyas,

did you notice DEEN's post above ( DEEN= religion of issslam)...very crude and hostile. It seems that men/women of a violent temperament and shady character gravitates towards issslam...this should not be a suprise since in reality isssslam is an ancient warrior cult started by a cultic figure named mohammad whose alter ego was elevated to the status of Godhead !

Currently in western countries, legions of islamist clergies are feverishly conducting cultic propaganda and indoctrination of prisoners (especially blacks and hispanics) and other racial minorities -- presenting to these neophytes the pretty face of Ysssshlam and cleverly concealing the unsavory aspects and danger of the cult...always reminding them how they have been 'so badly treated by the westerners ' and that conversion would be the culiminating act of defiance against the west and the 'system' that has 'enslaved' the minorities.....yet so cleverly hiding from the new initiates the vile history of islamist hegemony, enslavement, despotism , murder and mayhem practised on quite a diverse populations all around the globe !!!

Actually the islamists did enslave 1 million plus europeans in the past century -- i am referring to the barbary coast plunder of western ships and surrounding counries by islamist pirates.

Perhaps Ustadh Mofakkir of Tunisia can address this issue more frankly since Tunisia was once part of that marauding horde of isssslamist pirates?

Sister Aisha Nyanyaponika Kim
specialist in irrational adamikkk kkkults

ooooh one more thing Ustadh Mofakkir,

would you mind clicking on this link to read about the horrors of the violence and murder visited on the poor buddhists and hindus ( and christians) of bangladesh, especially the poor buddhists of the chittagong area....yes all this perpetrated by kind and peaceful islamists who followed the wonderful tenets of islam and also the wonderful example of 'al Insan al kamil'( the most perfect man...guess who? LOL )

your loving sister Ayesha Nyanyaponika Kim
specialist in evil and irrational adamikkk kkkults

Namo Thassa Bhagavato Arahato Samma sam Buddhasa

p.s. sorry Ya Mofakkir,

here is the link on the islamist abuse of buddhists in the chittagong area:

www.hrcbm.org/

Shukran
Sister Ayesha N. Kim

The root of the trouble is that this entire Moslem region is totally dysfunctional, by any standard of the word, and would have been so even if Israel had joined the Arab league and an independent Palestine had existed for 100 years.
The 22 member countries of the Arab league, from Mauritania to the Gulf States, have a total population of 300 millions, larger than the US and almost as large as the EU before its expansion. They have a land area larger than either the US or all of Europe.
These 22 countries, with all their oil and natural resources, have a combined GDP smaller than that of Netherlands plus Belgium and equal to half of the GDP of California alone.

Within this meager GDP, the gaps between rich and poor are beyond belief and too many of the rich made their money not by succeeding in business, but by being corrupt rulers.
The social status of women is far below what it was in the Western World 150 years ago.
Human rights are below any reasonable standard, in spite of the grotesque fact that Libya was elected Chair of the UN Human Rights commission. According to a report prepared by a committee of Arab intellectuals and published under the auspices of the U.N., the number of books translated by the entire Arab world is much smaller than what little Greece alone translates.

The total number of scientific publications of 300 million Arabs is less than that of 6 million Israelis. Birth rates in the region are very high, increasing the poverty, the social gaps and the cultural decline. And all of this is happening in a region, which only 30 years ago, was believed to be the next wealthy part of the world, and in a Moslem area, which developed, at some point in history, one of the most advanced cultures in the world.
It is fair to say that this creates an unprecedented breeding ground for cruel dictators, terror networks, fanaticism, incitement, suicide murders and general decline. It is also a fact that almost everybody in the region blames this situation on the United States, on Israel, on Western Civilization, on Judaism and Christianity, on anyone and anything, except themselves.

http://www.lifestyles.org/index.php?option=com_mamblog&Itemid=67&task=show&action=view&id=32&Itemid=67

Mohammedanism and Bolshevism are practical, social, unspiritual, concerned to win the empire of the world.’ The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism - Bertrand Russell.
http://www.freethinker.nl/russellquotes.htm

Some excerpts from the Kuran
Quran Surah 3: The Family Of 'Imran
All non-Muslims will be rejected by Allah after they die. 85

Quran Surah 4: Women
Allah will bestow a vast reward on those who fight in religious wars. 74
Have no unbelieving friends. Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them. 89 If the unbelievers do not offer you peace, kill them wherever you find them. Against such you are given clear warrant. 91 ( Offering peace in Islam means surrendering. All 67 out of 68 wars of Muhammad were offensive. They are called qazwah (raid, ambush, sudden attack). That is how Muhammad waged his wars. He raided, massacred and looted civilians with no warning. The one defensive war, 'ditch' was not fought. That is why the Islamic terrorism 'jihad' will continue until the West "offers peace". This was made clear by Bin Laden.)

Quran Surah 5: The Table Spread
Those who make war with Allah and his messenger will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. That is how they will be treated in this world, and in the next they will have an awful doom. 33

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Quran.htm

May, 25, 2005
In an act of total insanity, the Council of Europe, decided to ban criticism of Islam equating it to anti-Semitism.
This is the beginning of the fall of Europe. Anti-Islamism is not the same as anti-Semitism. Islam is a belief system, Semites are a race. We can’t equate a race to a doctrine. Racism is sheer evil. Islam advocates the hatred of the Jews in particular but also of Christians who according to the Quran have corrupted their Scripture and call Jesus the son of God. The Quran’s biggest condemnation is reserved for the people of other religions and of no religion. All these people, including Jews and Christians are considered to be najis and fuels of hellfire. This is hate. This is hate-mongering
Curtailing freedom of speech, specially banning criticism of a doctrine of hate is foolishly dangerous. Europe is playing with fire. The path that Europe has taken today will lead to its fall before the end of this century, but more likely it will auto disintegrate in a civil war in the next two or three decades.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina50525.htm
John Quincy Adams possessed a remarkably clear, uncompromised understanding of the permanent Islamic institutions of jihad war and dhimmitude. Regarding jihad, Adams states in his essay series,
“…he [Muhammad] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind…The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God.”
Confirming Adams’ assessment, the late Muslim scholar, Professor Majid Khadduri, wrote the following in his authoritative 1955 treatise on jihad, War and Peace in the Law of Islam : “Thus the jihad may be regarded as Islam’s instrument for carrying out its ultimate objective by turning all people into believers, if not in the prophethood of Muhammad (as in the case of the dhimmis), at least in the belief of God. The Prophet Muhammad is reported to have declared ‘some of my people will continue to fight victoriously for the sake of the truth until the last one of them will combat the anti-Christ’

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15201

The root of the trouble is that this entire Moslem region is totally dysfunctional, by any standard of the word, and would have been so even if Israel had joined the Arab league and an independent Palestine had existed for 100 years.
The 22 member countries of the Arab league, from Mauritania to the Gulf States, have a total population of 300 millions, larger than the US and almost as large as the EU before its expansion. They have a land area larger than either the US or all of Europe.
These 22 countries, with all their oil and natural resources, have a combined GDP smaller than that of Netherlands plus Belgium and equal to half of the GDP of California alone.

Within this meager GDP, the gaps between rich and poor are beyond belief and too many of the rich made their money not by succeeding in business, but by being corrupt rulers.
The social status of women is far below what it was in the Western World 150 years ago.
Human rights are below any reasonable standard, in spite of the grotesque fact that Libya was elected Chair of the UN Human Rights commission. According to a report prepared by a committee of Arab intellectuals and published under the auspices of the U.N., the number of books translated by the entire Arab world is much smaller than what little Greece alone translates.

The total number of scientific publications of 300 million Arabs is less than that of 6 million Israelis. Birth rates in the region are very high, increasing the poverty, the social gaps and the cultural decline. And all of this is happening in a region, which only 30 years ago, was believed to be the next wealthy part of the world, and in a Moslem area, which developed, at some point in history, one of the most advanced cultures in the world.
It is fair to say that this creates an unprecedented breeding ground for cruel dictators, terror networks, fanaticism, incitement, suicide murders and general decline. It is also a fact that almost everybody in the region blames this situation on the United States, on Israel, on Western Civilization, on Judaism and Christianity, on anyone and anything, except themselves.

http://www.lifestyles.org/index.php?option=com_mamblog&Itemid=67&task=show&action=view&id=32&Itemid=67

Mohammedanism and Bolshevism are practical, social, unspiritual, concerned to win the empire of the world.’ The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism - Bertrand Russell.
http://www.freethinker.nl/russellquotes.htm

Some excerpts from the Kuran
Quran Surah 3: The Family Of 'Imran
All non-Muslims will be rejected by Allah after they die. 85

Quran Surah 4: Women
Allah will bestow a vast reward on those who fight in religious wars. 74
Have no unbelieving friends. Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them. 89 If the unbelievers do not offer you peace, kill them wherever you find them. Against such you are given clear warrant. 91 ( Offering peace in Islam means surrendering. All 67 out of 68 wars of Muhammad were offensive. They are called qazwah (raid, ambush, sudden attack). That is how Muhammad waged his wars. He raided, massacred and looted civilians with no warning. The one defensive war, 'ditch' was not fought. That is why the Islamic terrorism 'jihad' will continue until the West "offers peace". This was made clear by Bin Laden.)

Quran Surah 5: The Table Spread
Those who make war with Allah and his messenger will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. That is how they will be treated in this world, and in the next they will have an awful doom. 33

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Quran.htm

May, 25, 2005
In an act of total insanity, the Council of Europe, decided to ban criticism of Islam equating it to anti-Semitism.
This is the beginning of the fall of Europe. Anti-Islamism is not the same as anti-Semitism. Islam is a belief system, Semites are a race. We can’t equate a race to a doctrine. Racism is sheer evil. Islam advocates the hatred of the Jews in particular but also of Christians who according to the Quran have corrupted their Scripture and call Jesus the son of God. The Quran’s biggest condemnation is reserved for the people of other religions and of no religion. All these people, including Jews and Christians are considered to be najis and fuels of hellfire. This is hate. This is hate-mongering
Curtailing freedom of speech, specially banning criticism of a doctrine of hate is foolishly dangerous. Europe is playing with fire. The path that Europe has taken today will lead to its fall before the end of this century, but more likely it will auto disintegrate in a civil war in the next two or three decades.
http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina50525.htm

John Quincy Adams [son of former US founding father and president] possessed a remarkably clear, uncompromised understanding of the permanent Islamic institutions of jihad war and dhimmitude. Regarding jihad, Adams states in his essay series,
“…he [Muhammad] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind…The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God.”
Confirming Adams’ assessment, the late Muslim scholar, Professor Majid Khadduri, wrote the following in his authoritative 1955 treatise on jihad, War and Peace in the Law of Islam : “Thus the jihad may be regarded as Islam’s instrument for carrying out its ultimate objective by turning all people into believers, if not in the prophethood of Muhammad (as in the case of the dhimmis), at least in the belief of God. The Prophet Muhammad is reported to have declared ‘some of my people will continue to fight victoriously for the sake of the truth until the last one of them will combat the anti-Christ’

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15201

Trackback URL: /cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/750