Bjørn Stærk blog - Anti-Islamic views

a Reader | 2004-08-20 04:18 | Link

Have a kid, raise the kid, sacrifice for the kid. Then have the kid convert to Islam in his teens, and watch while he instantly becomes an admirer of Osama bin Laden, an apologist for slavery, an apologist for the rape of non-Muslim women, an apologist for dhimmitude and Jim Crow laws applied to non-Muslims, including, of course, your good self, and all of your relatives who sacrificed for that kid for 15-20 years) and all the rest. . .then you'll "GET IT". Until then, I guess you should forget it. You don't know what you are bloody talking about.

Anton V, USA | 2004-08-20 04:42 | Link

Great post! I think your position will appeal to a lot of people who've been concerned about both Islamism and reactions to it excesses. Bear with me a minute: I'm a veteran reader of LGF and am proud to have donated a small part of a paycheck to Charles Johnson. Long before 9/11 or Intifada 2000, I came to regard Islamism as a threat to my safety and liberty; and I've had the misfortune to lose longtime Muslim friends because of heated debates over the morality of Islamist ideology. Usually the argument would boil an argument over how Islam, Israel, and US foreign were portrayed in Western media. They could always cite Chomsky, Said, etc while I found I could do no better than to lamely appeal to my personal observation that even the most well-read Westerners were broadly unaware of Islamist bigotry, fascistic triumphalism, fetishization of violence, tyranny of the mind, etc.

Until people like you and Charles began posting on the web, it was frustrating to see the dominant (soft-left) discourse casting Islam as a "religion of peace" and leaving it at that. To this day, even after 9/11 and the chain of smaller atrocities, the analysis of Islam's political component remains superficial.

On the other hand I find it dismaying that voices critical of Islamism seem to attract and sometimes countenance intolerance. Therefore I'm glad you've spoken out and I hope your post catalyzes introspection among LGFers. We are, after all, the good guys.

As for me, I'll probably vote Kerry (for his domestic platform) and make amends by sending LGF $100.

jimmytheclaw, earth | 2004-08-20 05:00 | Link

good post i tend to forget that its hate the hate not hate the hater.

Salahudin | 2004-08-20 12:27 | Link

It always amazes me to see how naive those Islam bashers are, they want you to believe that muslims hate the west just because it is west or because the west in infidel !! this is of course great fallacy otherwise how can you explain the fact that Muslims dont hate the chinese for example ? arent the chinse infidels as well ?

Why Muslims dont hate the latin Americans for example ? they are infidel, are they not ?

Why the so called muslim terrorists dont threaten and attack peaceful neutural countries such as Switzerland, Finland, Sweden, Iceland..etc ? arent these states western and infidel ??

The reason why muslims hate America and some AGGRESSIVE terrorist western countries is because they kill, oppress and terrorize muslims.

Let us read together what Bin Laden said in his latest audio speech:

Quote:

''What happened in September 11 and March 11 is your own merchandise coming back to you. We hereby advise you ... that your definition of us and of our actions as terrorism is nothing but a definition of yourselves by yourselves, since our reaction is of the same kind as your act. Our actions are a reaction to yours, which are destruction and killing of our people as is happening in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Palestine.
By what measure of kindness are your killed considered innocents while ours are considered worthless? By what school [of thought] is your blood considered blood while our blood is water?
Therefore, it is [only] just to respond in kind, and the one who started it is more to blame...

When you look at what happened and is happening, the killing in our countries and in yours, an important fact emerges, and that is that the oppression is forced on both us and you by your politicians who send your sons, against your will, to our country to kill and to be killed.
Therefore, both sides have an interest in thwarting those who shed the blood of the peoples for their own narrow interests, out of vassalage to the White House gang...''

Osama Bin Laden April 15, 2004

End of Quote.

It is very clear that the war Bin laden is waging against America and NOT against ALL the west or the Infidels is due to HALF CENTURY American and some western aggression against Muslims.

You guys need to get out from your hole and dump this self denial nonesense, dump this far right christian evangelical bullshit about infidels, 72 virgins, martyers...etc you need to acknowledge what your evil governments had done against Muslims.

To put it clearly: As long as Muslims are killed in their thousands in Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan by America and its terrorist allies, America, Americans and citizens of western countries that participate in the killing of muslims will be the target of those muslim extremists.

American Terrorism against Muslims before 9/11

WARNING ! WARNING ! below there are graphic pictures, DONT SEE THEM if you have weak heart or in the presence of childern!!

The following pictures reveal the truth about the barbaric attacks that were done by the United States of America's Armed forces against the Muslim Iraqi civilians in Southern Iraq. The United States used what is called "Uranium Bombs" against the unarmed Iraqi Civilians. The Deplete Uranium Bombs are exactly small Atomic Bombs!!.

The Iraqis did not have nor used any Nuclear Weapons against the US and its Allies. I am not in anyway defending Saddam Hussein and his barbaric regime. But why did the ''Civilized '' United States decide to attack the innocent IRAQI CIVILIANS with Nuclear Weapons??!!

In an act of stark cruelty, the US dominated Sanctions Committee refuses to permit Iraq to import the clean-up equipment that they desperately need to decontaminate their country of the Depleted Uranium ammunition that the US fired at them. Approximately 315 tons of DU dust was left by the use of this ammunition.The Sanctions Committee also refuses to allow the mass importation of anti-cancer treatments, which contain trace amounts of radio-isotopes, on the grounds that these constitute '...nuclear materials..' (Ross B. Mirkarimi)"

And why is the Civilized United States prevented Iraq from importing the "clean-up equipment" to clean its region from the Nuclear Radiation that is causing thousands of Iraqi kids to be born with its infection as shown below??!!

THE PICTURES:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/iraq8.jpg

http://www.answering-christianity.com/iraq6.jpg

http://www.answering-christianity.com/iraq12.jpg

http://www.answering-christianity.com/iraq13.jpg

http://www.answering-christianity.com/iraq11.jpg

http://www.answering-christianity.com/iraq1.jpg

http://www.answering-christianity.com/iraq2.jpg

http://www.answering-christianity.com/iraq3.jpg

http://www.answering-christianity.com/iraq4.jpg

http://www.answering-christianity.com/iraq5.jpg

http://www.answering-christianity.com/iraq7.jpg

http://www.answering-christianity.com/iraq16.jpg

http://www.answering-christianity.com/iraq19.jpg

http://www.answering-christianity.com/iraqi_torture.htm

Bjørn Stærk | 2004-08-20 13:25 | Link

Salahudin: "It always amazes me to see how naive those Islam bashers are, they want you to believe that muslims hate the west just because it is west or because the west in infidel !!"

Are you saying that "Muslims" do hate the West, then? All, most or some? What do you base that on? And do you include yourself with those Muslims? I note that you quote bin Laden to justify this hate. Do you agree with his reasons for hating the West, and do you agree with his methods? Let's come clean on where _you_ stand in all this, and what you really mean when you say "Muslims".

"It is very clear that the war Bin laden is waging against America and NOT against ALL the west or the Infidels is due to HALF CENTURY American and some western aggression against Muslims."

Ok, so you're saying there's a proportional relationship between the amount of harm a country does to Muslims, and the amount of hatred Muslims direct towards that country? The more harm, the more hatred, and the less harm, the less hatred? Let's test that theory. In the 1980's, the US helped Muslim rebels in Afghanistan fend off and later chase out the Russians. Afterwards, some of those rebels formed al-Qaeda. In the 1991, a large US-led coalition chased Saddam out of Kuwait, a Muslim country. Two years later al-Qaeda attacked the World Trade Center for the first time. Throughout the rest of the 90's, the US intervened on behalf of Muslims in Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo. Meanwhile al-Qaeda stepped up its terrorist campaign against the US - the embassy bombings, USS Cole, and eventually 9/11.

After 9/11, the US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, removed two authoritarian regimes, one secular, and another which followed a hateful and unpopular interpretation of Islam, and both of which had done immense harm to Afghan and Iraqi Muslims. In their place the US attempted to build Muslim-friendly democracies. I see no sign of al-Qaeda hating the US any less for this.

But perhaps your definition of "doing harm to Muslims" is different from mine?

"The United States used what is called "Uranium Bombs" against the unarmed Iraqi Civilians. The Deplete Uranium Bombs are exactly small Atomic Bombs!!."

No they're not. There's some disagreement over how dangerous depleted uranium ammunition is, and I'll let more qualified readers discuss the details. For now I'll just point out that DU is not in any way "exactly small Atomic Bombs", and start the debate by referring to this Wikipedia article on the subject, which concludes:

These facts together may indicate that DU ammunition is actually quite a health problem and endangers the civilian population if left on the battlefield. However, other studies have shown that DU ammunition has no measurable detrimental health effects, either in the short or long term. Critics of these studies point to the fact that they come primarily from the US and UK -- both supporters of DU. However, the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency also reports, "based on credible scientific evidence, there is no proven link between DU exposure and increases in human cancers or other significant health or environmental impacts." The US military watchdog group Federation of American Scientists has come to similar conclusions.

If you believe that DU is harmful, you'll have many scientists with you, (and many against). But to say that the US attacked "innocent IRAQI CIVILIANS with Nuclear Weapons" is just dishonest.

Salahudin | 2004-08-20 15:06 | Link

Re: Bjørn Stærk

You wrote:

''Are you saying that "Muslims" do hate the West, then? All, most or some? ''
================================

First you have to define what constitute ' west '? Muslims DONT hate the west as general if you mean by the west the countries that geographically situated on the west of the muslim world.

Muslims hate and resent AMERICA first and formost for its support for terrorism (Israel ) and its aggression and killings of Muslims.

Any western country that kill or participate in the killings of muslims join the club.

You wrote:

''What do you base that on?''
==============================

On ONE CENTURY of oppression, killing and terrorism against Muslims, do you want details ?

You wrote:

'' And do you include yourself with those Muslims? ''
=============================

Yes, I am with those muslims who resent and hate AMERICA first and formost for what it did and doing right now in many parts of the muslim world.

You wrote:

''I note that you quote bin Laden to justify this hate. Do you agree with his reasons for hating the West, and do you agree with his methods? ''
=============================

There are 2 reasons why I quote bin laden:

1- because he is the leader of Alqaeda and thus the only one who can tell us why he is doing what he is doing.

2- to show those islam bashers and those 'liars' who want to blame Islam and its doctrine, rather than their own evil actions, for the current terrorism that bin laden is not attacking the west as a whole, he is NOT attacking the west because the west is infidel, he is attacking the countries that kill muslims.

No one answered me: why those muslim extremists are not attacking CHINA ? why they are not attacking Switzerland ? why they are not attacking BRAZIL ???? etc can anyone answer ?

Bin laden grievances are shared by nearly every muslim on earth, his cause is endoresed by nearly every muslim on earth but his METHODS are REJECTED by nearly every muslim on earth.

I dont condone killing innocent Americans, I condemn terrorism in very strong term.

http://www.islamdenouncesterrorism.com

You wrote:

''Let's come clean on where _you_ stand in all this, and what you really mean when you say "Muslims". ''
==============================

Indeed, As Muslim I support the causes of muslims in their pursuit to live FREE from American oppression. after all you will not like seeing American F16s and American tanks bombing OSLO or any other Norwiegan city and killing 30,000 innocent Norwiegans as the case in Muslim Iraq now, will you ?? will the Norwiegan people sit idle watching American soldiers killing them ??????????????

You wrote:

''Ok, so you're saying there's a proportional relationship between the amount of harm a country does to Muslims, and the amount of hatred Muslims direct towards that country? The more harm, the more hatred, and the less harm, the less hatred? ''
============================

Exactly.

You wrote:

''Let's test that theory. In the 1980's, the US helped Muslim rebels in Afghanistan fend off and later chase out the Russians.''
============================

You got that wrong, the US helped the Mujahideen fight the ''SOVIET UNION'' not for the sake of the muslims but for the sake of weakning and defeating the SOVIETS.

You wrote:

'' Afterwards, some of those rebels formed al-Qaeda. In the 1991, a large US-led coalition chased Saddam out of Kuwait, a Muslim country.''
================================

Again, the USA chased saddam out of Kuwait not for the sake of the poor muslim kuwaities but for the sake of the OIL, otherwise how do you explain the fact that the US did not chase saddam out of Iran when he invaded it in 1980?

Also how do you explain the fact ( supported with this video ) that The US helped saddam against another muslim country, Iran:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2038.htm
Shaking Hands with the enemy," Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983.

Can you tell me what Rumsfeld is doing then knowing that Saddam was massacring his own people and indeed using WMD against Iran ???

You wrote:

''Two years later al-Qaeda attacked the World Trade Center for the first time. Throughout the rest of the 90's, the US intervened on behalf of Muslims in Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo.''
===========================

Not true, the US went to Somalia thinking they can ' finish off the fuckers' as Clinton put it, they massacred so many muslims in Somalia and then they were humiliated and kicked out by the very somalies the Americans 'allegedly' came to help.

As to Bosnia, it is well known fact that the US only interfered when tens of thousands of muslims were slaughtered and massacred by christian serbs, and when thousands of muslim mujahideen started flocking into Bosnia and when the war started to go in MUSLIM favour, the US fear the establishemnt of an islamic state at the heart of Europe and so 'Dayton' agreement was quickly signed.

You wrote:

'' Meanwhile al-Qaeda stepped up its terrorist campaign against the US - the embassy bombings, USS Cole, and eventually 9/11. ''
=============================

Meanwhile 1.5 million inncoent Iraqi MUSLIM childern died under brutal American sanction.

and another 2-3 thousand Palestineans died at the hand of the Israeli jewish terrorists using American weapons and money:

http://www.ifamericansknew.org

You wrote:

''After 9/11, the US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, removed two authoritarian regimes, one secular, and another which followed a hateful and unpopular interpretation of Islam, and both of which had done immense harm to Afghan and Iraqi Muslims.''
================================

It is worth to note that NOT a single Afghani nor a single Iraqi was involved in 9/11 !!

invading Iraq and Afghanista resulted in the death of some 50,000 INNOCENT MUSLIMS combind ! what do you call that ? dont you call it TERRORISM or is it 'collateral damage ' since the victims are muslims ??

I have something will really surprise you, it is from today's famous British Newspaper, The Guardian:

Mike Scheuer, a senior intelligence officer ( at the CIA )who led the Bin Laden station for four years published a book-length attack on the establishment. His book, Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror :

He describes the invasion of Iraq as "an avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat but whose defeat did offer economic advantage". He even goes so far as to call on America's generals to resign rather than execute orders that "they know [...] will produce more, not less, danger to their nation".

NOTE WHAT HE WROTE HERE:

Quote:

'' Bin Laden,is not a lonely maverick, but draws support from much of the Islamic world, which resents the US not for what it is, but for what it does - supporting Israel almost uncritically, propping up corrupt regimes in the Arab world, garrisoning troops on the Saudi peninsula near Islam's most holy sites to safeguard access to cheap oil.
"America ought to do what's in America's interests, and those interests are not served by being dependent on oil in the Middle East and by giving an open hand to the Israelis," Scheuer argues. "If we're less open-handed to Israel over time we can cut down Bin Laden's ability to grow. ''

End of Quote.

Source:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,1287015,00.html

tell me, Who will pay for the killing of this innocent Iraqi Muslim girl ?

GRAPHIC PICTURE:

http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterr...

Read what the some of the American barbaric soldiers in Iraq said:

'' We had a great day. We killed a lot of people. We dropped a few civilians, but what do you do? I’m sorry but the chick was in the way.”

— Sgt. Eric Schrumpf
cowardly sniper
with the Fifth Marine Regiment
March 29, 2003

Sgt. Schrumpf wasn’t sorry at all, of course. He was boasting about murdering people, including a woman, or “chick”, he claims was standing near an Iraqi soldier.

“I think they [Iraqi people] thought we wouldn’t shoot kids. But we showed them we don’t care. We are going to do what we have to do to stay alive and keep ourselves safe. I did what I had to do. I don’t have a big problem with it but anyone who shoots a little kid has to feel something.”

— Private Nick Boggs
U.S. Army psychopath, war criminal

Private Boggs was referring to his cold-blooded murder of a 10-year-old boy. Boggs fired his machinegun at the boy who fell dead on a garbage-strewn stretch of wasteland in Karbala, Iraq. Another little Iraqi boy of the same age was hit but not killed, and he dragged his friend’s dead body away.

Boggs is a 21-year-old former hunting guide from Alaska. He claims the boy was reaching for a rocket propelled grenade.

Nick Boggs is a goddamned filthy war criminal. If the stupid jerk wants to “stay alive and keep himself safe” he shouldn’t be invading other people’s countries on behalf of the oil companies. Then he wouldn’t have to murder 10-year-old boys and make excuses for it.

“The Iraqis are sick people and we are the chemotherapy. I am starting to hate this country. Wait till I get hold of a fuckin’ Iraqi. No, I won’t get hold of one. I’ll just kill him.”

— Corporal Ryan Dupre
U.S. Army psychopath, war criminal

here are some pictures of INNOCENT IRAQI MUSLIMS killed by the American ''terrorists'' :

http://www.jamaat.net/jforum/viewtopic.php?t=84

And you still wondering why some Americans get 'beheaded' ???????

You wrote:

'' In their place the US attempted to build Muslim-friendly democracies. I see no sign of al-Qaeda hating the US any less for this. ''
============================

Do you really buy this ? building democracies ? only when pigs start flying.

you wrote:

''But perhaps your definition of "doing harm to Muslims" is different from mine?''
===========================

Indeed because you are not Muslim nor you lived in muslim land nor you saw what I saw.

You wrote:

'' "The United States used what is called "Uranium Bombs" against the unarmed Iraqi Civilians. The Deplete Uranium Bombs are exactly small Atomic Bombs!!."
No they're not. There's some disagreement over how dangerous depleted uranium ammunition is, and I'll let more qualified readers discuss the details. For now I'll just point out that DU is not in any way "exactly small Atomic Bombs", and start the debate by referring to this Wikipedia article on the subject, which concludes: ''
====================================

Depleted uranium is a by-product of the processing of natural uranium into reactor fuel. Using a mass spectrometer, the natural uranium (uranium obtained from mining operations) is separated into U235 and U238. The U235 is then mixed back into the U238 to obtain a specific concentration, that concentration being higher than the concentration in natural uranium. As a result, large quantities of U238 are left over. This U238 is called depleted uranium.

Until recently, a practical use for the growing stockpile of U238 was not known. But U238 has chemical properties that make it useful for the
military. Uranium burns easily in air. Uranium is dense, which gives bullets great penetrating power. As a result, depleted uranium is used as
armor shielding in the newest generation of tanks and in various bullets, from large shells to small arms fire.

You wrote:

''What is important is to know that depleted uranium is not a nuclear weapon.''
=====================

Indeed, maybe I used the wrong word but can you explain why then 1.5 million Iraqi childern died many of them died with 'strange' cancer ???

You wrote:

''These facts together may indicate that DU ammunition is actually quite a health problem and endangers the civilian population if left on the battlefield. ''
=============================

Can you tell me why it is banned then ??? and why the American criminals used it in the first place ??

You wrote:

''If you believe that DU is harmful, you'll have many scientists with you, (and many against). But to say that the US attacked "innocent IRAQI CIVILIANS with Nuclear Weapons" is just dishonest. ''
============================

I am not qualified to determine what DU constitues but I will let the scientists to judge.

Peace be with you.

Colt | 2004-08-20 15:46 | Link

But try applying that statement to anti-Americanism or anti-Israelism. When Europeans become excessively critical of the US or Israel, should we look for the cause in something the US and Israel has done to Europe, or primarily inside Europe itself?

It's a false comparison. There are genuine evils (and I don't use that word lightly) within Islam, the Islamic world, however you want to put it. A more accurate comparison would be to virulent anti-Nazis.

Assume for a moment that LGFers, and those like them (us), are rational sane individuals. I've been posting there for what must be two years now, and they are not irrational haters. There are some, of course.

What seems to have been forgotten in the scrum to condemn 'extremists' is the possiblity that al-Qaeda, et al, are acting in a wholly Islamic fashion. If that is the case, as many LGFers believe, is our anti-Islamic sentiment irrational, or extremist?

Sorry to babble, BTW. I'm usually more coherent :-)

Herbie, NY NY | 2004-08-20 16:14 | Link

Reading Salhudin's comments is a fascinating experience. The entirety is woven through with the fact that Moslems are victims. They never take responsibility for their own predicament. It is not the West or the US that has kept them down. To the contrary any capitalist system would seek to increase the net worth of market participants in order to enable them to buy more products. Second, not one Moslem country approaches a democracy. Indeed some 60% of women in Moslem countries are, according to the UN illiterate. Certainly the Moslem brotherhood which is the spiritual foundation of terrorist thought regards the West as a whole as a Satan

Evil Paul | 2004-08-20 16:29 | Link

Salahudin, I am sure there will be elaborate replies to your post, meanwhile find my brief comments:

Salahudin: "Indeed, As Muslim I support the causes of muslims in their pursuit to live FREE from American oppression. after all you will not like seeing American F16s and American tanks bombing OSLO or any other Norwiegan city and killing 30,000 innocent Norwiegans as the case in Muslim Iraq now, will you ??"

You do not seem to care too much about Muslims who lived under Saddam's oppression? And as a Norwegian, if we were under a tyrant's rule, someone capable of putting thousands of Norway's inhabitants to death by use of lethal gas, and ourselves not being capable to get rid of this regime - then certainly I would be among those welcoming American intervention.

Salahudin: "You got that wrong, the US helped the Mujahideen fight the ''SOVIET UNION'' not for the sake of the muslims but for the sake of weakning and defeating the SOVIETS."

Naturally, yet it still served the muslims' case, did it not?

Salahudin: "Also how do you explain the fact ( supported with this video ) that The US helped saddam against another muslim country, Iran"

Perhaps because Iran had a leadership even more nasty than what Iraq had? Makes perfect sense to support the bad guy instead of the really bad guy, does it not?

Salahudin: "... the US went to Somalia thinking they can ' finish off the fuckers' as Clinton put it, they massacred so many muslims in Somalia and then they were humiliated and kicked out by the very somalies the Americans 'allegedly' came to help."

So what you are saying is that the US went to Somalia simply to kill people, to "finish off fuckers"?

Do you think there may be more substantial reasons, which would warrant risk of American lives in a country like Somalia? Does protection of food supply and relief agencies ring a bell? Was UN in some way involved?

Your account of historical events is untrue.

Salahudin: "As to Bosnia, it is well known fact that the US only interfered when tens of thousands of muslims were slaughtered and massacred by christian serbs, and when thousands of muslim mujahideen started flocking into Bosnia and when the war started to go in MUSLIM favour, the US fear the establishemnt of an islamic state at the heart of Europe and so 'Dayton' agreement was quickly signed."

Unlike other nations, Europeans included, the US did actually interfer. This stopped large-scale killings, but even though it saved Muslim lives it seems hard for you to acknowledge this.

There are several answers to your question of why countries such as Brazil are not targets for terrorism.

Here is one obvious: unlike the US, Brazil does not actively resist terrorism, Muslim fundamentalism, and cruel regimes such as Iraq under Saddam Hussein. Brazil does not actively promote democracy in the way done by the Americans, and is therefore not a target for those opposing implementation of Western-style democracies.

And Salahudin, while on the topic, and Americans and their methods aside, what is your view on democratisation of Muslim nations?

Bjørn Stærk | 2004-08-20 16:46 | Link

Salahudin: "On ONE CENTURY of oppression, killing and terrorism against Muslims, do you want details ?"

No, I meant what do you base it on that Muslims hate America? And again, what do you mean by "Muslims"? You're essentially signing up 1.3 billion people here for your own particular interpretation of history. I'd like to see some evidence to back that up.

"Bin laden grievances are shared by nearly every muslim on earth, his cause is endoresed by nearly every muslim on earth but his METHODS are REJECTED by nearly every muslim on earth."

Perhaps, but you're still a bin Laden apologist. You're making excuses for his hatred, defending it as reasonable in light of America's evil behavior. That's just not good enough. You can't reject bin Laden's methods but defend his hatred, the one is a product of the other, like the Holocaust was a product of Hitler's hatred of Jews. Such irrational hatred inevitably leads to evil behavior. We need to confront both the evil behavior and the hatred. You may not be a terrorist, but you're helping to create an environment terrorism can live in.

"You got that wrong, the US helped the Mujahideen fight the ''SOVIET UNION'' not for the sake of the muslims but for the sake of weakning and defeating the SOVIETS."

Ah, now you're revising your theory. Now it's no longer about whether the US helps or harms Muslims, but whether they help them for the right reasons. So let's restate your theory: The more harm the US does to Muslims, with the intent of harming Muslims, the more Muslims hate America, and the more the US helps Muslims, with the intent of helping Muslims, the less Muslims hate America. Agree?

Your new theory puts Afghanistan in a gray area. As you rightly point out, the welfare of Muslims was not a concern in that war, the Mujahedin were only a tool for fighting the Russians. And when the Russians were gone, the Americans abandoned Afghanistan, and let it fall into chaos, leading to the Taliban and 9/11. In the short term, however, the American aid did help Muslims, and they had no deliberate intention of harming them. So it's a gray area, falling outside the domain of your theory.

Kuwait also becomes cloudier. The intent was to check the growing power of Saddam, who would likely have invaded all the small Gulf states, then Saudi Arabia, possibly Iran, if the Americans hadn't stopped him. So the intent was not just to fight Saddam, but to maintain peace and stability in the region, which benefited both the West and the Arab states. This was reflected in the massive Arab support for the war. It wasn't a purely idealistic war, but it was still fought for the sake of providing Muslims with peace and stability. Then again stability in the Middle East means prolonging the oppression of Muslim civilians by evil dictators. So that too may or may not fall outside the domain of your theory. Feel free to revise it to accommodate for Afghanistan and Kuwait.

Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq remain on the list, however. In three of these cases, (Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo) helping Muslims was the primary objective of the intervention. In the last two, liberating Muslims from evil tyrants was the secondary objective of the invasions. These were all interventions with the intent (among other things) of helping Muslims. According to your revised theory, this should translate into less hatred of the US, not more. So where is your theory wrong?

"otherwise how do you explain the fact that the US did not chase saddam out of Iran when he invaded it in 1980?"

But Iran also has oil. The reason the US did not intervene was 1) that it considered Iran to be the most dangerous regime in the Middle East, and Iraq a convenient counter-balance, 2) that it was too soon after Vietnam for the US to have regained their military self confidence, 3) that all foreign policy took place in light of the Cold War, and 4) that they didn't much care. Rumsfeld's visit (as a private citizen, only temporarily employed by the Reagan administration), and the subsequent playing down of the Kurdish genocide, was a reflection of point 4. It should be pointed out that the US first began to support Iraq in the mid-80's, so the friendship was a short-lived one. It's also worth pointing out that US foreign policy has grown increasingly idealistic ever since the fall from power of Henry Kissinger in the 70's.

"Meanwhile 1.5 million inncoent Iraqi MUSLIM childern died under brutal American sanction."

No, they did not. Matt Welch researched this thoroughly for this Reason article, and cites figures of 100-300 000 deaths. That's bad, but no excuse to pull numbers out of the air.

You continue with a long rant against the Afghanistan and Iraq wars where I don't see the relevance to what we're discussing. You had a theory that the more Americans harmed Muslims, the more Muslims would hate America, and the other way around. I've given you a lot of examples that proves the opposite. The Mike Scheuer quote just shows that there are some Americans who think it was foolish and counterproductive to help these Muslims in that particular way. The soldier quotes (if real) just shows that there are American soldiers who are callous and evil. This is no secret. I've written about that before.

But what we're talking about (especially after you revised your theory) is the intentions of the Bush administration, and the vast majority of Americans and American soldiers. The amount of evidence is overwhelming: Americans believe they now have an obligation to help Iraq and Afghanistan become peaceful, free, Muslim democracies. They could have maintained the Iraqi army, installed a US-friendly dictator, and left in a hurry last summer if they'd wanted to. But they chose to stay, at the cost of many hundred American lives, so they could leave behind a peaceful, democratic Iraq. This isn't just some wacky theory I'm stating here, this is the official policy of the Bush administration, and what a lot of American readers here will tell you if you ask them.

My whole purpose with these examples is not to show that the US has done everything right, or that it always acts primarily from idealistic motives, (who does?), but only to test your theory that anti-American hatred among Muslims is proportional to the harm Americans cause Muslims (intentionally, in the revised theory). So far it's not looking good.

"Indeed, maybe I used the wrong word but can you explain why then 1.5 million Iraqi childern died many of them died with 'strange' cancer ???"

Earlier you said 1.5 million Iraqi children were killed by the UN sanctions. Make up your mind. And what is "strange" cancer? How many (exactly) did it kill? Where is the proof that this was caused by DU? Remember - you have to prove that there is a relationship, I don't have to prove that there isn't.

"Can you tell me why it is banned then ??? and why the American criminals used it in the first place ??"

Some people believe it is somewhat harmful. Not very, but a bit. Others disagree. The reason the Americans want to use it is that DU ammunition is extremely effective against armor. This has nothing to do with it being dangerously radioactive or toxic. Those are just potential side effects, questioned by many scientists.

"I am not qualified to determine what DU constitues but I will let the scientists to judge."

I agree. Earlier you called DU ammunition a nuclear weapon. Perhaps you should take that as a sign that you shouldn't always trust what people tell you about the US, and that it's always a good idea to check your beliefs against reliable sources. Try that with some of the other things you've written here.

Andrew X | 2004-08-20 17:20 | Link

Salahudin -

Why exactly are Muslims in conflict with....

Eastern Orthodox Christians in Chechnya and Kosovo, Western Catholic Christians in Bosnia, Europe, Africa, the US, and the Philipines, secularists in Europe and the US, Hindus in Kashmir, Jews everywhere on planet earth, and atheists in general?

To parphrase a sign I have seen.... "Why are you hated so?"

Rune Kristian Viken, Oslo | 2004-08-20 17:20 | Link

Salahudin wrote:

Now, fortunately it's been a long time since Norway was occupied. It is considered bad form to bring in the second world war and Hitler in discussions, but in this case it is relevant.

Norway was occupied by germany during WWII. During that time, allied forces - mostly Britan - sent several air raids against german forces in Norway - killing both germans and norwegians.

I come from a town called "Kvinesdal" in Norway. During WWII, there was a molybdenium-mine at a place called Knaben in Kvinesdal. It was bombed twice during WWII, killing both innocent norwegians, germans, several POWs the german used as labour, and so forth.

There was some resentment against the brits, as they targetted a civilan installation with military interests. However, even so, it was viewed as the 'right thing'.

The Brits also did other bombing raids in Norway. Still - they were not hated for it. They were not the oppressors.

Enter Saddam Hussein. Enter Taliban. Both oppressive regimes. The US has _helped_ liberate muslims by removing those regimes. Why do muslims continue to hate their liberators?

Herbie, NY NY | 2004-08-20 17:41 | Link

I read Salahudin and am reminded of the old Russian proverb where a serf is told by God that he may have anything he wishes, but that his neighbor will have twice as much. The serf, after thinking a moment, says make me blind in one eye.

Salahudin | 2004-08-20 18:12 | Link

Re: Herbie, NY NY

You wrote:

''Reading Salhudin's comments is a fascinating experience. The entirety is woven through with the fact that Moslems are victims. ''
=============================

What do you call the 30,000 innocent iraqi Muslims killed so far by your 'terrorist' army ?? arent they victims ? or arent only victims when they are Americans ????

How about the 15,000 innocent Afghani Muslims who were killed by your 'barbaric' army, arent they victims ????

How about the thousands of Muslims killed in Palestine by jewish terrorists using your weapons ? arent they victims ?????

You wrote:

''They never take responsibility for their own predicament. It is not the West or the US that has kept them down.''
==============================

Oh I see, I think you mean the Iraqis should take blame for the invasion of their country, right ? and the same applie for the Afghanis ?

and since we are at it, How about the Palestineans taking blame for the HOLOCAUST and the establishement of the terrorist state of Israel on their land ???

You wrote:

'' To the contrary any capitalist system would seek to increase the net worth of market participants in order to enable them to buy more products.''
===========================

Oh yeah, we have seen the example of Argentina and how they tried to follow the blood-sucking capitalist system just to end up nearly bankrupt.

you wrote:

'' Second, not one Moslem country approaches a democracy.''
================================

First democrasy is the rule of the mob where 51% can dedicate on the 49% what to do.

Secondly, Democrasy was invented in Greece where slaves and women were not allowed to vote, so keep it there, we are not interested in western-style demon-crasy, we have our own form of democrasy called 'shoura'.

sadly some muslim states like Turkey, Malaysia, Indonesia and others are applying fake western style democrasy but the aspirtations of the majority of muslims is to have our own shoura.

You wrote:

'' Indeed some 60% of women in Moslem countries are, according to the UN illiterate.''
============================

Indeed 75 % of Americans (men and women ) are functionally ILLITERATE:

Source: Tamara Henry, "Literacy Skills Require Upkeep," USA Today, December 11, 1997.

And since we are talking about Muslim woman, it is amazing to note that the president of the largest muslim country in the world is Muslim woman, president Meqawati of Indonesia, can you tell me when, IF EVER, your free civilized country will elect its first woman president ???

You wrote:

'' Certainly the Moslem brotherhood which is the spiritual foundation of terrorist thought regards the West as a whole as a Satan''
==========================

Proof ???

| 2004-08-20 18:19 | Link

Re: Andrew X

You wrote:

Salahudin -

''Why exactly are Muslims in conflict with....''
============================

With aggressors, killers and invaders...you know who I am talking about !

Herbie, New York | 2004-08-20 18:34 | Link

I rest my case on Salahudin's response to my last comment. One thing sadly lacking in Islamic thought is the ability to be rational

Salahudin | 2004-08-20 19:01 | Link

Re: Evil Paul

You wrote:

''You do not seem to care too much about Muslims who lived under Saddam's oppression? And as a Norwegian, if we were under a tyrant's rule, someone capable of putting thousands of Norway's inhabitants to death by use of lethal gas, and ourselves not being capable to get rid of this regime - then certainly I would be among those welcoming American intervention.''
===================================

Can you tell me who was supporting saddam and shaking hands with him in 'this video' taken in 1983 knowing very well he was massacring his own people ?

The Video:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2038.htm

You failed to answer my question:

Will the Norwegian people sit idel watching American F16s bombing and killing them ?????

Did the Norwegians sat idle when between 1716-1718 Sweden attacked them ????

You wrote:

''Salahudin: "You got that wrong, the US helped the Mujahideen fight the ''SOVIET UNION'' not for the sake of the muslims but for the sake of weakning and defeating the SOVIETS."
Naturally, yet it still served the muslims' case, did it not?''
================================

It served us because we were FIGHTING not the Americans.

You wrote:

''Salahudin: "Also how do you explain the fact ( supported with this video ) that The US helped saddam against another muslim country, Iran"
Perhaps because Iran had a leadership even more nasty than what Iraq had? Makes perfect sense to support the bad guy instead of the really bad guy, does it not? ''
================================

So you admit America supported BAD GUYS regardless of HUMAN RIGHTS and Democrasy and all this CRAP some Americans like to talk about all the time ???

The issue is this: AMERICA knew saddam was killing his OWN people and yet they helped and kept supporting him, any comment on this ??

You wrote:

''So what you are saying is that the US went to Somalia simply to kill people, to "finish off fuckers"? ''
============================

The US had strategic interest in the Horn of Africa, do you think they give a damn about the somalies ?????

You wrote:

''Do you think there may be more substantial reasons, which would warrant risk of American lives in a country like Somalia? Does protection of food supply and relief agencies ring a bell? Was UN in some way involved? ''
===================================

Let me remind you that for half a century, Muslims in Palestine were being killed at the hands of the jewish terrorists, why America did not interfene ?????

You wrote:

''Your account of historical events is untrue. ''
================================

I suppose your account is true, right ?

You wrote:

''Salahudin: "As to Bosnia, it is well known fact that the US only interfered when tens of thousands of muslims were slaughtered and massacred by christian serbs, and when thousands of muslim mujahideen started flocking into Bosnia and when the war started to go in MUSLIM favour, the US fear the establishemnt of an islamic state at the heart of Europe and so 'Dayton' agreement was quickly signed."

Unlike other nations, Europeans included, the US did actually interfer. This stopped large-scale killings, but even though it saved Muslim lives it seems hard for you to acknowledge this.''
=============================

It saved SERBIAN lives not Muslim lives, Muslims were already ethnically cleansed and uprooted from their homes, get your facts straight.

In fact, zionist countries like HOLLAND abandonded the Muslim city of srebrenica when they were in charge under the UN to let the christian serbs come and KILL thousands of Muslims there:

The Srebrenica Massacre, July 1995

http://www.gendercide.org/case_srebrenica.html

You wrote:

''There are several answers to your question of why countries such as Brazil are not targets for terrorism.
Here is one obvious: unlike the US, Brazil does not actively resist terrorism, Muslim fundamentalism, and cruel regimes such as Iraq under Saddam Hussein. Brazil does not actively promote democracy in the way done by the Americans, and is therefore not a target for those opposing implementation of Western-style democracies. ''
================================

The reason you gave cant even accepted by 6 year old kid ! who are you kidding ?????? are you saying America is attacked because it promotes ' democrasy' ??? this is PATHETIC.

Beside, who appointed America the policeman of our world ?? who gave America the right to tell me as Muslim how should I live my life and who should govern me ???

I wish to live the life I WANT, I wish to be govern by ISLAM, ist America's business or right to change my will ????

You wrote:

''And Salahudin, while on the topic, and Americans and their methods aside, what is your view on democratisation of Muslim nations?''
============================

We dont want democratisation, democrasy is WESTERN invention developed as a result of certain social, cultural and economical developemtns took place in the west which did not take place in the muslim world.

We have our OWN form of democrasy, we have the Islamic shoura. beside, why you guys are so concerned about the muslim world, isnt better to sort out your own problems in your own states first ????

Peace be with you.

| 2004-08-20 19:07 | Link

Re: Herbie, New York |

''I rest my case on Salahudin's response to my last comment. One thing sadly lacking in Islamic thought is the ability to be rational ''
=================================

Truth is, you're always going to lose when you play a game of cat and mouse with the cat. :))))

| 2004-08-20 19:11 | Link

Re: Rune Kristian Viken, Oslo

You wrote:

''Enter Saddam Hussein. Enter Taliban. Both oppressive regimes. The US has _helped_ liberate muslims by removing those regimes. Why do muslims continue to hate their liberators? ''
========================

It is worth noting that both these regimes were nourished and supported by the USA and both were KILLING their own people.

We dont look at the Americans as liberators but as killers and terrorists specially their blind support for the terrorist state of Israel.

I think you need to be Muslim, you need to live in the Middle East to understand why America is SO MUCH HATED there. in fact, thanks to GWB America is now hated all over the world.

Harald | 2004-08-20 19:14 | Link

Is there such thing as a "moderate muslim"? And what what would being a "moderate muslim" entail?

It seems to me like a lot of westerners base their views on Islam (and the possibility of its reformation) on their experiences with Christianity - a religion that somewhat allows you to pick and choose whichever parts of it you want to believe. In the western sphere, the less you believe in the bible, the more moderate you are percieved.

Some christians don't believe in hell, don't believe in speaking in tongues, don't believe sex before marriage is a sin... Heck, some modern day christians don't even believe in Jesus!

In this sense, a "moderate muslim" would be one who denounces the parts of the muslim faith that collides with the western-humanistic values.

Question is, is this possible to do while still remaining a muslim? To my knowledge, it is not. The ones who try gets killed.

Herbie, NY NY | 2004-08-20 19:21 | Link

I would argue that under no circumstances should Islam be banned. Former Justice Barndeis of the US Supreme Court once said in a famous opinion that "Sunlight is the best of disinfectants” Under that analysis, if Salaludin is representative of the Islamic thought process, it would pay great dividends to the West to have his views as widely spread as possible

Ali Dashti | 2004-08-20 19:29 | Link

Here we go again. I will repeat some of the points I have made before, simply because I believe they are correct, important and haven't been refuted by anybody here:

Islam only gives you three options:

1. Convert to Islam.

2. Accept a position as "dhimmi", second - or third rate citizen in your own country, with severe restrictions on your freedoms, subject to Muslim rule and humiliation and paying a somtimes crushing "punishment tax" called Jizya. This option, already not that great, is only available to the "People of the Book", which means other monotheists such as Christians or Jews. This is what too many in our growing Muslim communities in the West want to turn us into: Second-class citizens in our own home. That is what the fuzz is all about with screams of "censorship" from the 2% Muslims in Norway, who think the native 98% of the population shall submit to their rule. Just like the persecuted Christians do in Pakistan, Egypt etc.

3. Die. All those not belonging to the two first categories - Muslims and discriminated monotheists - shall be killed. Buddhists, Hindus, Bahais, animists, agnostics, atheists etc. This is not "extremism", it is ORTHODOX ISLAMIC TEACHINGS, and always has been so in every single important Islamic school of thought since the early Middle Ages. Now Bjørn, since you are not a religious person, Muslims have a God-given right, some would say duty, to kill you. This is not paranoia, it is the sad and horrible truth.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/008.qmt.html#008.012

When thy Lord inspired the angels, (saying): I am with you. So make those who believe stand firm. I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Then smite the necks and smite of them each finger.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/047.qmt.html#047.004

Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html#009.123

O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him).

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/003.qmt.html#003.028

Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.

http://cwis.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/005.qmt.html#005.033

The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;

http://cwis.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/008.qmt.html#008.059

Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.

Now, as an Atheist or non-religious person, I am very much included in the "Unbeliever" category of people that the KORAN ITSELF demands should be killed, mutilated etc. These passages - and many more like them - will still be there, regardless of how you "interpret" them. Why the hell am I supposed to be understanding towards an ideology that wants me dead???

Orthodox Islam wants me dead. Now, "Reformist Islam", does it only want me slightly dead? Badly beaten, but still alive? In a coma, perhaps? Can Bjørn please tell me the Reformist, Peaceful and Secular way of chopping my head off, as 47.7 (and other verses) clearly demands, and which is in fact a direct order from Gods himself?

Yours in Reformist anticipation, Ali Dashti.

Herbie, New York | 2004-08-20 20:01 | Link

Given Salahudin’s mind set, the best thing that could happen is that Islamic men be required to wear a veil and Islamic women go about unveiled and educated. Further, as regards marriage, each woman should be entitled to 4 husbands provided she treats each fairly and equally.

Salahudin | 2004-08-20 20:31 | Link

Re: Bjørn Stærk

You wrote:

''Salahudin: "On ONE CENTURY of oppression, killing and terrorism against Muslims, do you want details ?"

No, I meant what do you base it on that Muslims hate America? ''
=============================

On American support for anti muslim terrorism ( Israel ) and the killing and the oppression of Muslims.

You wrote:

''And again, what do you mean by "Muslims"? You're essentially signing up 1.3 billion people here for your own particular interpretation of history. I'd like to see some evidence to back that up.''
===================================

first, Muslims are now 2 billion not 1.3 billion, secondly, Muslims are those who believe in the oneness of God ( Allah ) and who consider prophet Muhammad(pbuh) the last prophet sent by God to all mankind.

True, I dont speak on behalf of all Muslims, but I am well qualified to know the general feeling among them:

here are some facts as you requested:

From the Arab American Institute:

http://www.aaiusa.org/PDF/Impressions_of_America04.pdf

You wrote:

"Bin laden grievances are shared by nearly every muslim on earth, his cause is endoresed by nearly every muslim on earth but his METHODS are REJECTED by nearly every muslim on earth."

Perhaps, but you're still a bin Laden apologist. You're making excuses for his hatred, defending it as reasonable in light of America's evil behavior. ''
==================================

Bin laden hatred is the general muslim hatred, I am not even apologizing for his ' justified ' hatred, I am explaining it. I disagree and I condemn his methods of dealing with America and the other agressive western countries, I dont think it is Islamically acceptable to kill innocent civilians even though the barabric americans are killing innocent muslims.

You wrote:

''That's just not good enough. You can't reject bin Laden's methods but defend his hatred, the one is a product of the other, like the Holocaust was a product of Hitler's hatred of Jews.''
============================

Not necessarliy, I hate America as much as he does, but I will never ever resort to his murderous ways in expressing his hatred.

You wrote:

'' Such irrational hatred inevitably leads to evil behavior. We need to confront both the evil behavior and the hatred. You may not be a terrorist, but you're helping to create an environment terrorism can live in.''
========================

Is there any hatred without reason ?

As to creating environment terrorism can live in, I think this statement hold no ground for any muslim specially after seeing thousands of my own brothers and sisters massacred by the Americans ( I already posted you some pictures )

Beside, shall we first define what terrorism is ???

You wrote:

"You got that wrong, the US helped the Mujahideen fight the ''SOVIET UNION'' not for the sake of the muslims but for the sake of weakning and defeating the SOVIETS."

Ah, now you're revising your theory. Now it's no longer about whether the US helps or harms Muslims, but whether they help them for the right reasons. ''
=================================

They NEVER helped us for any reason that might benefit us, they helped us to HELP THEMSELVES.

You wrote:

''So let's restate your theory: The more harm the US does to Muslims, with the intent of harming Muslims, the more Muslims hate America, and the more the US helps Muslims, with the intent of helping Muslims, the less Muslims hate America. Agree?''
==========================

No, I disagree, America has NO intenet of helping muslims at all, America want 2 things:

1- The Oil and

2- protecting the terrorist state of Israel.

You wrote:

''Your new theory puts Afghanistan in a gray area. As you rightly point out, the welfare of Muslims was not a concern in that war, the Mujahedin were only a tool for fighting the Russians. And when the Russians were gone, the Americans abandoned Afghanistan, and let it fall into chaos, leading to the Taliban and 9/11. In the short term, however, the American aid did help Muslims, and they had no deliberate intention of harming them. So it's a gray area, falling outside the domain of your theory.''
==============================

Dont you think abandoning Afghanistan by the US after the Soviet defeat is not an act of deliberate harm against the muslims there ????

You wrote:

''Kuwait also becomes cloudier. The intent was to check the growing power of Saddam, who would likely have invaded all the small Gulf states, then Saudi Arabia, possibly Iran, if the Americans hadn't stopped him. So the intent was not just to fight Saddam, but to maintain peace and stability in the region, which benefited both the West and the Arab states.''
==============================

Do you really think the US was concerned about the 'peace' and 'stability ' or about the OIL supplies ?????

You wrote:

'' It wasn't a purely idealistic war, but it was still fought for the sake of providing Muslims with peace and stability.''
==============================

I disagree here, because let us remember it was the ARABS who paid the bill of this war not the Americans.

You wrote:

'' Then again stability in the Middle East means prolonging the oppression of Muslim civilians by evil dictators. So that too may or may not fall outside the domain of your theory. Feel free to revise it to accommodate for Afghanistan and Kuwait. ''
================================

I already disagreed with your tailored made theory.

How about Peace and Stability in Palestine ?? why the US did not nothing to help the Palestineans ??

I already showed you what this senior CIA officer said about the reason Muslims hate America:

He wrote:

'' Bin Laden, he believes, is not a lonely maverick, but draws support from much of the Islamic world, which resents the US not for what it is, but for what it does - supporting Israel almost uncritically, propping up corrupt regimes in the Arab world, garrisoning troops on the Saudi peninsula near Islam's most holy sites to safeguard access to cheap oil.
"America ought to do what's in America's interests, and those interests are not served by being dependent on oil in the Middle East and by giving an open hand to the Israelis," Scheuer argues. "If we're less open-handed to Israel over time we can cut down Bin Laden's ability to grow ''

http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,1287015,00.html

The fact the US continue to blindly support the terrorist state of Israel and its barbaric terrorism against the Palestineans is at the heart of muslim hatred toward America.

I wish we can have seperate debate about PALESTINE.

You wrote:

'' Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq remain on the list, however. In three of these cases, (Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo) helping Muslims was the primary objective of the intervention. ''
==============================

I disagree, only after muslims were slaughtered in their thousands did America get involved.

You wrote:

''In the last two, liberating Muslims from evil tyrants was the secondary objective of the invasions. These were all interventions with the intent (among other things) of helping Muslims.''
=============================

Helping muslims starts in PALESTINE, the fact that PALESTINE was bleeding for half a century under jewish brutal terrorism with the support of America removes any doubt about America's real intentions.

You wrote:

'' According to your revised theory, this should translate into less hatred of the US, not more. So where is your theory wrong?''
===================================

It is your assumptions which are wrong, you assume things as FACTS and you want to build theory based on these PERCIEVED facts ! it does not work this way.

You wrote:

"otherwise how do you explain the fact that the US did not chase saddam out of Iran when he invaded it in 1980?"
But Iran also has oil. The reason the US did not intervene was 1) that it considered Iran to be the most dangerous regime in the Middle East, and Iraq a convenient counter-balance, 2) that it was too soon after Vietnam for the US to have regained their military self confidence, 3) that all foreign policy took place in light of the Cold War, and 4) that they didn't much care. ''
==================================

So no consideration for the fact that Saddam was killing his own people, it is ok, America still supported him, after all he was keeping an eye on the mullahs in Iran, and you are talking about helping muslims !!!!!!! I found that breath-taking.

You wrote:

''Rumsfeld's visit (as a private citizen, only temporarily employed by the Reagan administration)''
=================================

WHAT ??? private citizen ?? are you joking ??

Rumsfeld was then the special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, he was not private citizen and he was no temporarily employed by Regan, Can you please be more appreciative of our intelligence ?

The issue is not who went, the issue is WHY America was supporting Saddam knowing very well the appalling massacres he is inflicting on his own people ????

You wrote:

"Meanwhile 1.5 million inncoent Iraqi MUSLIM childern died under brutal American sanction."

No, they did not. Matt Welch researched this thoroughly for this Reason article, and cites figures of 100-300 000 deaths. That's bad, but no excuse to pull numbers out of the air. ''
==============================

Who is Matt Welch, another American ???

An estimated 1.5 to 3 million Iraqis have died as a result of the sanctions.

Source:
http://www.commondreams.org/views/073000-104.htm

Iraqi Sanctions: Myth and Fact

by Jeff Lindemyer, Swans Commentary:

September 3, 2001

http://www.swans.com

Genocide by Sanctions - a video illustrating conditions in Iraq by former Attorny General Ramsey Clark, made in 1997 - Conditions are worse now (late 1999).

THE VIDEO:

http://www.freespeech.org/ramfiles/genocide.ram

Items Banned by the Americans during the sanctions :

agricultural pesticides
all electrical equipment
all other building materials ambulances
baby food
badminton rackets
bandages
blankets
boots
cannulas for intravenous drips catheters for babies
children's bicycles
children's clothes
chlorine and other water
purification chemicals
cleaning agents
cobalt sources for X-ray
machines
deodorants
dialysis equipment
disposable surgical gloves
drugs for angina
ECG monitors
erasers
glue for textbooks
incubators
leather material for shoes lipsticks
medical gauze
medical journals
medical swabs
medical syringes
medication for epilepsy
nail polish
nasogastric tubes
notebooks
nylon cloth for filtering flour
other adult clothes
oxygen tents
paper
pencil sharpeners
pencils
ping-pong balls
polyester & acrylic yarn rice rubber tubes
school books
school handicraft equipment
shampoo
shirts
shoe laces
shroud material
soap
sanitary towels
specific granite shipments
specific umbilical catheters
steel plate stethoscopes
suction catheters for blockages surgical instruments
textile plant equipment
thread for children's clothes
tissues
toilet paper
tooth brushes
toothpaste
various other foodstuffs
wool felt for thermal insulation
X-ray equipment
X-ray film

source: The Scourging of Iraq : Sanctions, Law and Natural Justice by Geoff Simons, St. Martins Press .

''We call on the president of America, the vice president and the congressmen to come to Iraq and see the little children and Tony Blair, the U.K. government and Kofi Annan to come and to go to the cancer ward and give us an answer...what was their crime?" -Nobel Peace Prize laureate Adolfo Perez-Esquivel of Argentina who traveled to Iraq in March (AP, March 9, 1999)

"I asked myself many times where do the rights of children fit in here? Why should any, but especially children under the age of five, suffer so much and die in such numbers? Sadly, I had to witness ever repeated scenes of children dying as I walked through hospital wards...." - Margarita Skinner, UNICEF Health Coordinator in Baghdad from 1991-1992, excerpt from her 1998 book 'Between Despair and Hope. Windows on my Middle East Journey 1967-1992'. The Radcliffe Press . London and New York 1998.

"Even the most conservative, independent estimates hold economic sanctions responsible for a public health catastrophe of epic proportions. The World Health Organization believes at least 5,000 children under the age of 5 die each month from lack of access to food, medicine and clean water. Malnutrition, disease, poverty and premature death now ravage a once relatively prosperous society whose public health system was the envy of the Middle East. I went to Iraq in September 1997 to oversee the U.N.'s "oil for food" program. I quickly realized that thishumanitarian program was a Band-Aid for a U.N. sanctions regime that was quite literally killing people. Feeling the moral credibility of the U.N. was being undermined, and not wishing to be complicit in what I felt was a criminal violation of human rights, I resigned after 13 months." --Denis Halliday, former humanitarian aid coordinator for Iraq (Seattle Post-Intelligencer, February 12, 1999)

"You kill people without blood or organs flying around, without angering American public opinion. People are dying silently in their beds. If 5,000 children are dying each month, this means 60,000 a year. Over eight years, we have half a million children. This is equivalent to two or three Hiroshimas."-Ashraf Bayoumi, former head of the World Food Programme Observation Unit, in charge of monitoring food distribution in Iraq (Al-Ahram Weekly, 24 December 1998).

"Malnutrition was not a public health problem in Iraq prior to the embargo. Its extent became apparent during 1991 and the prevalence has increased greatly since then: 18% in 1991 to 31% in 1996 of [children] under five with chronic malnutrition (stunting); 9% to 26% with underweight malnutrition; 3% to 11% with wasting (acute malnutrition), an increase in over 200%. By 1997, it was estimated about one million children under five were [chronically] malnourished." --Situation Analysis of Children and Women in Iraq, UNICEF Report, 30 April 1998, pg. 23 and 63.

You wrote:

''You continue with a long rant against the Afghanistan and Iraq wars where I don't see the relevance to what we're discussing. You had a theory that the more Americans harmed Muslims, the more Muslims would hate America, and the other way around. I've given you a lot of examples that proves the opposite.''
==================================

Your examples dont hold any ground because they are based on PERCEIVED assumptions which are ( as far as muslims concerned ) are false.

You wrote:

'' The Mike Scheuer quote just shows that there are some Americans who think it was foolish and counterproductive to help these Muslims in that particular way. The soldier quotes (if real) just shows that there are American soldiers who are callous and evil. This is no secret. I've written about that before. ''
=====================================

This is very funny, we are talking here about SENIOR CIA intelligence officer not about anyone.

I dont think you have 1% knowledge of what Mr Scheuer have about America, the Muslim world and terrorism, after all, we are reading what an EXPERT is writting, dont you think we should put our hubris aside and LISTEN to him ? or do you think you will listen to him only if he says something suits your percieved assumptions ??

I mean come on....he know it all.

You wrote:

''But what we're talking about (especially after you revised your theory) is the intentions of the Bush administration, and the vast majority of Americans and American soldiers. The amount of evidence is overwhelming: Americans believe they now have an obligation to help Iraq and Afghanistan become peaceful, free, Muslim democracies.''
================================

what theory ?? the one based on your percieved assumptions ?

As to the americans and their obligation, who gave them the right to have any obligation in regards to muslims in the first place ??

You wrote:

'' They could have maintained the Iraqi army, installed a US-friendly dictator, and left in a hurry last summer if they'd wanted to. But they chose to stay, at the cost of many hundred American lives, so they could leave behind a peaceful, democratic Iraq.''
================================

Very funny and absurd at the same time.

Let us read what BUSH'S OWN ADVISER said about the reasons behind the Iraq war:

Iraq War Launched to Protect Israel - Bush Adviser

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5965.htm

And oh, what about the WMD ?? I thought this was the MAIN REASON for invading iraq as always illustrated by the American war criminals??

''We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat. ''- Donald Rumsfeld, ABC interview, March 30, 2003

''Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. '' Dick Cheney, speech to VFW National Convention, Aug. 26, 2002

''Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons. ''- George W. Bush, speech to UN General Assembly, Sept. 12, 2002

''No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.''- Donald Rumsfeld, testimony to Congress, Sept. 19, 2002

''The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq.''- George W. Bush, Nov. 23, 2002

''If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.'' - Ari Fleischer, press briefing, Dec. 2, 2002

''We know for a fact that there are weapons there.'' - Ari Fleischer, press briefing, Jan. 9, 2003

''What we know from UN inspectors over the course of the last decade is that Saddam Hussein possesses thousands of chemical warheads, that he possesses hundreds of liters of very dangerous toxins that can kill millions of people.'' - White House spokesman Dan Bartlett, CNN interview, Jan. 26, 2003

''Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard, and VX nerve agent…. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.'' - George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003

''We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.'' - Colin Powell, remarks to UN Security Council, Feb. 5, 2003

''We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons - the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.'' - George W. Bush, radio address, Feb. 8, 2003

''If Iraq had disarmed itself, gotten rid of its weapons of mass destruction over the past 12 years, or over the last several months since [UN Resolution] 1441 was enacted, we would not be facing the crisis that we now have before us.''- Colin Powell, interview with Radio France International, Feb. 28, 2003

''So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad?….I think our judgment has to be clearly not.'' - Colin Powell, remarks to UN Security Council, March 7, 2003

''Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.'' - George W. Bush, address to the U.S., March 17, 2003

''The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.''- George W. Bush, address to U.S., March 19, 2003

''Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly…..All this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.'' - Ari Fleisher, press briefing, March 21, 2003

''There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And….as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them. - Gen.'' Tommy Franks, press conference, March 22, 2003

''I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.-'' Defense Policy Board member Kenneth Adelman, The Washington Post, March 23, 2003

''One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.'' - Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clark, press briefing, March 22, 2003

''Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find - and there will be plenty.'' - Robert Kagan, The Washington Post, April 9, 2003

''But make no mistake - as I said earlier - we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.'' - Ari Fleischer, press briefing, April 10, 2003

''We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.'' - George W. Bush, NBC interview, April 24, 2003

''There are people who in large measure have information that we need….so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country. ''- Donald Rumsfeld, press briefing, April 25, 2003

''We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so. ''- George W. Bush, remarks to reporters, May 3, 2003

''I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now. ''- Colin Powell, remarks to reporters, May 4, 2003

''I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein – because he had a weapons program.'' - George W. Bush, remarks to reporters, May 6, 2003

Can you tell me where are these WMD now ????

You wrote:

'' This isn't just some wacky theory I'm stating here, this is the official policy of the Bush administration, and what a lot of American readers here will tell you if you ask them. ''
===========================

Offical policy ?? hmmmmmmmm

''The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq.''- George W. Bush, Nov. 23, 2002

You wrote:

''My whole purpose with these examples is not to show that the US has done everything right, or that it always acts primarily from idealistic motives, (who does?), but only to test your theory that anti-American hatred among Muslims is proportional to the harm Americans cause Muslims (intentionally, in the revised theory). So far it's not looking good.''
==================================

As I said you are building your conclusions on PERCEIVED assumptions which are NOT true, they are from your own immagination.

You wrote:

''Earlier you said 1.5 million Iraqi children were killed by the UN sanctions. Make up your mind. ''
===========================

Indeed, I stick to what I wrote, I already supplied you with evidence, scroll up.

You wrote:

''Some people believe it is somewhat harmful. Not very, but a bit. Others disagree. The reason the Americans want to use it is that DU ammunition is extremely effective against armor. This has nothing to do with it being dangerously radioactive or toxic. Those are just potential side effects, questioned by many scientists.''
============================

I see, you still did not answer, DU is internationally banned weapons, why the Americans used it ???

You wrote:

" Perhaps you should take that as a sign that you shouldn't always trust what people tell you about the US, and that it's always a good idea to check your beliefs against reliable sources. Try that with some of the other things you've written here. ''
=================================

Thank you for the advice but I dont take my information from what people say, I form my information from PERSONAL EXPERIENCE and from interacting with muslims all over the world.

Why you dont ask a Palestinean for example how they feel about the USA ? you should try that and then come back to me with your impression.

Peace be with you.

Salahudin | 2004-08-20 20:37 | Link

Re: Ali Dashti

''Here we go again. I will repeat some of the points I have made before, simply because I believe they are correct, important and haven't been refuted by anybody here:''
=================================

Before you ask for refutation to your lies ( very easy to refute since they are lies ) why not refute the links I gave you in another thread about the SPREAD OF ISLAM all over the world ??

If Islam was that bad how come thousands of westerners convert to islam every year ? are they all fools ??? :))

Here are the links again, you ran away from the other thread, so I caught you here, will you refute them or will you run away as before ? ??

Islamic Britain lures top people

Sunday Times 22 February 2004
MORE than 14,000 white Britons have converted to Islam after becoming disillusioned with western values, according to the first authoritative study of the phenomenon.

Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/649424.asp

-'' Indeed, Islam is the world's fastest growing religion in the world'' The Economist, London Sept 2003

-BBC: Thousands of Asutralia's Aboriginals are converting to Islam:

http://newswww.bbc.net.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2902315.stm

-Islam is spreading so fast in Mexico:

http://www.finalcall.com/international/mexico07-02-2002.htm

http://www.racematters.org/islamtakesrootinmexico.htm

- EVEN IN HAWAII, MORE AND MORE ARE CONVERTING TO ISLAM:

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2001/Nov/11/ln/ln06a.html

-In South Africa, so many blacks are converting to Islam:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0110/p13s1-woaf.html

-Thousands in Rawanda-Africa are converting to Islam every year:

http://www.xamarcadde.com/rawanda.html

- Hindus in india are converting to Islam in their masses:

http://www.milligazette.com/Archive.../0111200275.htm

- Islam is back to Spain after 500 years:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1002/p07s01-woeu.html

- More and more americans are converting to Islam specially after 9/11:

http://www.yorknewstimes.com/stories/042702/neb_0427020012.shtml

- NEW YORK TIMES: ISLAM ATTRACT THOUSANDS DRAWN BEFORE AND AFTER 9/11:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30D13FA345A0C718EDDA90994D9404482

- The Canadian Globe and Mail: Islam is now the fastest growing religion in Canada:
http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20030514/UCENSN/TPFront/TopStories

Islam: The Next American Religion?

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/69/story_6982.html

Catholic World News: Exhilarating Time To Be Christian," But Islam Grows Faster

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=16311

U.S. Department of State for International Information programes: Islam is one of the fastest growing religions in America:

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/muslimlife/

Muslims outpace Anglicans in UK

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/444572.cms

A Spanish bridge to Islam:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1002/p07s01-woeu.html

Britain Elites are converting to Islam:

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/03/286384.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1096872/posts

http://www.lightuponlight.com/islam...ws&new_topic=14

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/artic...erahIslam.shtml

-Islam is also spreading in Ukraine:

http://www.crimeatau.org.ua/project/islam/itriu.html

An Icelander’s Journey to Light :
By Anna Linda Traustadóttir
10/08/2004
Reykjavík, Iceland

http://www.jamaat.net/jforum/viewtopic.php?t=219

Illinois residents find faith in Islam:

Daily Herald - 8/16/2004
http://www.jamaat.net/jforum/viewtopic.php?t=226

Islam First Religion in Amsterdam

http://www.jamaat.net/jforum/viewtopic.php?t=194

and here is nice SHOCK for you Mr Ali Islamophobe:

Turning Muslim in Texas:
George W Bush may be backed by Christian fundamentalists but in his home state of Texas, Islam is the latest big draw. The Bible belt is transferring its allegiance to the Qur’an:

http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/B/believeitornot/texas1.html

Minarets Rise in Germany

Gulcek's mosque is part of the surge in Islamic construction sweeping Germany. The number of traditional mosques with their distinctive minarets nearly doubled in Germany from 77 in 2002 to 141 in 2003, according to Islam Archive, a Muslim research group in the city of Soest. An additional 154 mosques and cultural centers are planned, many of them in the countryside.

http://www.jamaat.net/jforum/viewtopic.php?t=195

DONT RUN AWAY :)))))

Colt, U.K. | 2004-08-20 20:47 | Link

If Islam was that bad how come thousands of westerners convert to islam every year ? are they all fools ??? :))

Yes.

H. Polonski | 2004-08-20 21:19 | Link

Apparently Mr Staerk is really confused. Bjorn, would you rather live in a country where there is a state church, or in a country where church and state are separated? I'm asking, because separation of church and state requires religions to submit to the laws of the land. Those that do not must be banned.

jimmytheclaw, earth | 2004-08-20 21:55 | Link

Bjorn 2 quick links to check out the first one is on jihad

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14744

the second is on the Islamic Human Rights in response to the human rights thing with the un

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/ohmyrus30816.htm

salahudin feel free to respond to these two articles

Salahudin | 2004-08-20 22:05 | Link

Re: Colt, U.K.

''If Islam was that bad how come thousands of westerners convert to islam every year ? are they all fools ??? :))

Yes.''
================================

Italy's ambassador to Saudi Arabia has converted to Islam

ROME, Nov 26 2001

Italy's ambassador to Saudi Arabia has converted to Islam, the second time in seven years that an envoy of Rome to Riyadh has adopted its religion.

Torquato Cardilli, a career diplomat from overwhelmingly Roman Catholic Italy, revealed his decision to Saudi newspapers on Saturday, his 59th birthday. Italian diplomatic sources confirmed the announcement on Monday. His official conversion was made on the eve of Ramadan.

http://www.dawn.com/2001/11/27/int15.htm

ENJOY :))

Salahudin | 2004-08-20 22:08 | Link

Re: jimmytheclaw, earth

''salahudin feel free to respond to these two articles''
============================

Both from well known anti muslim christian hate sites, I dont entertain bigots and Islamophobes.

Do you have anything from NUETURAL SOURCES ???

I mean cant you see the amount of hate and Islamophobia in these sites ?????

Sha, NYC | 2004-08-20 22:24 | Link

As an American who happens to be Muslim, I do not at all agree with Salahudin comments, but, from what I know of relatives in the old country, they are certainly widespread.

I find myself in this quandry all the time; when debating cousins, who refer to the tyrannical Americans, how does one respond to a picture of an Iraqi child burnt to a crisp? Knowledge of geo-politics and strategic interests fall to such base emotional appeals. When I talk of the tyranny of the Muslim dictators, the response, inevitably, is "well, they were U.S. backed."

On the other hand, it becomes harder for so-called 'moderate Muslim' to want to air their views when one comes across the LGF credo of "All Muslims are Scoundrels/Kill them all." By voicing my opposition to the Islamists, I do not want to give support to the other extreme.

I also believe Israel has unjustly oppressed Palestine, and see no substantial difference between the situation there now and apartheid in South Africa. I also disagree with my country's policy in that region to blindly support Israel.

So, I am neither here nor there.

But this is my country and I love it and we are at war with the Islamists. What more can be said?

Raging Bee, USA | 2004-08-20 22:38 | Link

Wow, the joint's jumpin' today. Here's what I said on "Secular Blasphemy" on the same subject:

"...When bigots fight bigots, bigots win - and the rest of us lose.

"It seems to me that Islam today is in a similar position to that of Christianity during the Inquisition and the Burning Times: there were plenty of Christians back then who knew as well as we do that the killings and pogroms were not at all in line with the teachings of Jesus; but the political climate then was one of hysteria and intolerance, they didn't have viable democratic institutions, and there was simply no way for those 'moderate elements' to speak out safely, let alone put a stop to the extremist policies.

"...'lack of hate' makes perfect sense to me; defend what is under attack, attack when we must, and in general wait out the madness."

That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it!

Iron Fist | 2004-08-20 23:01 | Link

On the other hand, it becomes harder for so-called 'moderate Muslim' to want to air their views when one comes across the LGF credo of "All Muslims are Scoundrels/Kill them all." By voicing my opposition to the Islamists, I do not want to give support to the other extreme.

Yeah, I see how condemning something trivial like beheading Americans could be a problem when faced with the awful rhetoric at LGF. I mean, those LGF'ers get so pissed off every time a Muslim beheads somebody, and, G-d, if a Muslim blows up some Jewish kids, watch out!

[/Sarcasm]
Sorry, holmes, but that dog won’t hunt. It’d be like me saying that “Yeah, the Ku Klux Klan sucks, but if I condemn them, it is like supporting General Sherman as he burns Atlanta, so I just got to keep my mouth shut about the Klan!” Sounds pretty asinine, when you sum it up like that, doesn’t it?

Get back with me when an LGF'er beheads somebody on videotape. 'Til then, what your really saying is that harsh language from people who should be good dhimmis is worse than Muslim atrocities. Get a clue. I’ve spent the last 30 years watching Muslims scream “Death to America!” I’ve spent 30 years watching Muslims blow up Americans and Israelis for the crime of being American or Israeli.

And I’ve spent 30 years watching people like yourself sit on the fence.

But this is my country and I love it and we are at war with the Islamists. What more can be said?

Time to decide which side you are on. If you consider that “hate”, so be it.

| 2004-08-20 23:12 | Link

"Yeah, I see how condemning something trivial like beheading Americans could be a problem when faced with the awful rhetoric at LGF. I mean, those LGF'ers get so pissed off every time a Muslim beheads somebody, and, G-d, if a Muslim blows up some Jewish kids, watch out!"

This is exactly what I mean. Because I've told you I'm Muslim, you require me to explicitly condemn beheadings of civilians. To civilized people, that should go without saying; but, apprently since I'm Muslim, I'm not civilized.

To hell with that. Islamists must go, but Islam, my friend, is here (in America) to stay. Deal with it.

"Time to decide which side you are on. If you consider that “hate”, so be it."

Buddy, I'm on the opposite of whatever side you say you're on.

Ali Dashti | 2004-08-20 23:12 | Link

Raging Bee: "there were plenty of Christians back then who knew as well as we do that the killings and pogroms were not at all in line with the teachings of Jesus"

Bingo! And as a non-Christian, I would like to point out that this is NOT the case with Islam, where killings and pogroms are integral parts of Muhammed's personal example, his Sunna. Do a Google search on names like Asma bint Marwan and Banu Qurayza, and you'll see the difference between Jesus and his disciples, and Muhammed and his band of murderous thugs. That's why Christianity could be reformed, and Islam cannot. It just has to be removed, one way or the other.

Salahudin: I'm not interested in reading your zillion links. I've actually read most of them before, anyway. I want YOU, personally, to tell me why Islam is such a great religion. Please tell me why I should follow the moral example of a 54 year old man who had sex with a 9 year old child. I'm waiting.....

James PA.,USA | 2004-08-20 23:34 | Link

Nah, Sha,

You can be a relaxed Muslim only if you are far enough away from the umma that they don't see your lapse.

The Muslim truth is total submission to Allah, not an allegiance to a western style democratic state that separates religion from governance.

You guys are the ones who say there is no halfway.

Iron Fist | 2004-08-20 23:52 | Link

Sha,

You make the mistake of assuming that I am civilized. I was giving you the oppertunity to explain to me why I should be.

Buddy, I'm on the opposite of whatever side you say you're on

Way to pass up an oppertunity.

That little threat should make me more tolerant of Muslims, why?

Rene´, DK | 2004-08-21 02:43 | Link

Where are those people who believe in Islam but are not Islamists?

I know a number of Muslims who don’t really believe in Islam and are ‘cultural Muslims’ just as most European are ‘cultural Christians’ but Muslims who truly believe in Islam seems to me to be Islamist.

Rene´, DK | 2004-08-21 02:44 | Link

Where are those people who believe in Islam but are not Islamists?

Lydia | 2004-08-21 06:32 | Link

Salahudin is a prime example of the effects of the Arab Neurosis: blame everything on the West, yet have eyes only for the West, because the West is deemed as validating the existence of Arab culture.

If only Arab culture had something to offer to the West, other than oil. Yet it does not. Arabs are painfully aware of this, and wind up spending time thinking of new ways to become victims of the West, in order to be noticed by it.

jimmytheclaw, earth | 2004-08-21 07:09 | Link

ahh words of wisdom from iron fist. ok 1 more link to memri

The Majority of Revolutions, Coups D’etat, and Wars ... are Almost Entirely the Handiwork of the Jews

“The majority of revolutions, coups d’etat, and wars which have occurred in the world [in the past], those that are occurring, and those that will occur, are almost entirely the handiwork of the Jews. They [the Jews] turned to [these methods] in order to implement the injunctions of the fabricated Torah, the Talmud, and the ‘Protocols [of the Elders of Zion’], all of which command the destruction of all non-Jews in order to achieve their goal - namely, world domination.”

“In addition, they aspire to dominate the world in material, cultural, and spiritual terms in order to annihilate it. They own property and gold and they control the banks and other financial institutions, which [in turn] control the economies of the powerful countries. In this way they controlled the most [influential] people in the world, in whose power it was to entangle their countries in wars that resulted in benefits only for the Jews. Among the enticements [which the Jews used] were: 1) cash incentives; 2) offering jobs; 3) the introduction of religious elements into terrorism.”

“The Jews managed to receive the support of groups of individuals in the world through the means of religious distortions, whereby they deceived their victims [into believing] that they are the chosen people and that God wants them to once more take possession of Palestine, the promised land. [The Jews] also conduct acts of terror and assassinations against the world’s politicians who oppose them, as in the case of the assassination of Count [Folke] Bernadotte, who was sent by the U.N. in 1948 to serve as a mediator between the Arabs and the Jews to solve the problem of Palestine. The Jews got mad at him, killed him in that same year, and acted to exonerate the murderers on the pretext that they were insane.”

“[Another example] is the assassination of Swedish Prime Minister Olaf Palme, who attempted to prevent bloodshed between Iraq and Iran. He learned Islam and was quite interested in it, started several Islamic study groups in Stockholm, and encouraged the Swedes to familiarize themselves with Islam. When the Jews came to the conclusion that his behavior and policies were not in accordance with their evil goals, their intelligence assassinated him. No leads were found for this crime except for a bullet which the Zionist intelligence is known to use.”

...

The Jews Created Every Scientific or Philosophical Principle or School

“Every scientific or philosophical principle or school was either created by Jews, or else Jews were behind them:

“The Jew Karl Marx was behind communism and socialism which destroyed human nature.

“The Jew [Emile] Durkheim was behind the science of sociology which destroyed the family unit.

“The Jew [Jean-Paul] Sartre was behind licentious existentialism.

“The Jew [Sigmund] Freud was behind psychology which established the principles of wild sex and immorality.

“The Jew [Benjamin] Disraeli was behind the policy of ‘the ends justify the means.’

“The Jew [Rene] Cassin drew up the program for human rights.

“The Jew Leon Pavlovski drew up the Charter of the League of Nations. The Jews established the League of Nations in order to ratify the Balfour Declaration and to impose the British Mandate on Palestine as a preparatory measure to the founding of Israel. In addition, they established the U.N. in order to declare the founding of Israel, to protect it, and to expand it."

http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP76804

read it all and dont say minority crap. imho anything comming out of mecca has the authority of the holiest place in islam. and it is beyond hateful. this is not a one time thing i read things like this daily. funny how in 3 years ive learned all kinds of foriegn words dhimmi jizya taquiya kitman and so many other things.

FelixUSA | 2004-08-21 07:14 | Link

Great post, Bjorn. I agree with you 100%.

It's not new, Americans have denigrated the societies they fought against in almost every war they've ever fought. It's a bit of a knee-jerk response to the conflict of the day, and also because the U.S. tends to get involved in conflicts for idealogical reasons.

It's especially damaging in this conflict because we aren't at war with Islam itself, but rather certain extremist parts of it. The comments you sampled do a disservice(I mean the comments, not the sampling) to individuals who aren't necessarily our enemies, and who often are our allies. It also takes our focus off the real enemies.

There are real disparities between mainstream Islamic beliefs and mainstream Western beliefs though, completely aside the conflict we're fighting at the moment. This isn't helping either the Western or the Islamic world understand each other, something that's critical as this conflict plays out.

Salahudin: I'm particularly unimpressed by your selective association as the U.S. being the driving force to all that's wrong in the Islamic world. It's as if in your view every other entity in the world doesn't exist, just the U.S.

For example: Afghanistan. The Soviets invaded that country, but you don't blame them for the mess that is Afghanistan today. Some Afghani's supported the Soviet invasion, you don't blame them either. Other Afghani's and foreign Muslims(with U.S. support) fought the Soviets and their Afghani allies, but you don't blame them either. After the Soviets withdrew, Afghani's could have rebuilt their nation but instead factionalized, and you don't blame them. The Taliban eventually seized power and provided sanctuary to Al Qaeda, which attacked the U.S. but you blame neither the Taliban or Al Qaeda. The U.S. invaded Afghanistan to remove the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and is currently working on building a democracy in Afghanistan.

You place all the blame on the U.S. for either not helping Afghanistan more after the Soviets withdrew, or for liberating Afghanistan and building a democracy there now. I'm not sure which it is, but either way it's wrong. There were more factors to why Afghanistan is in the trouble it's in now than just U.S. involvement, but you ignore them as if they didn't exist.

Mashiki , Canada | 2004-08-21 07:42 | Link

I figured I might as well dive into this. I've read the earlier comments and all, banning Islam...I couldn't care. I have a feeling that it will either reform, or we'll end up wiping out massive sections of the population in a world war. It's not a pleasent thought, then again neither are the things that are passed at the madrassahs that the Saudi's or Egyptians fund all over the world.

Ask yourself, how many in Europe teach that all other relgions but Islam are false. Then ask how many of these schools teach that these 'false' worshipper's must be converted or die. Recently there were several in the US that were teaching this. People were quite angry at this, how many in Europe? How many around the world? What do you call it when you tell someone that your view is the "only" view, and all others are false? Indoctrination.

How about the media from these Arab countries which is passed around? Here from the Saudi Armed Forces: "The majority of revolutions, coups d'etat, and wars which have occurred in the world [in the past], those that are occurring, and those that will occur, are almost entirely the handiwork of the Jews. They [the Jews] turned to [these methods] in order to implement the injunctions of the fabricated Torah, the Talmud, and the 'Protocols [of the Elders of Zion'], all of which command the destruction of all non-Jews in order to achieve their goal - namely, world domination.

"In addition, they aspire to dominate the world in material, cultural, and spiritual terms in order to annihilate it. "
Saudi Armed Forces Journal on the Jews: 'The Fabricated Torah, Talmud, and Protocols of the Elders of Zion Command Destruction of All Non-Jews for World Domination'

By all means, scan through the rest of Memri. Take a look at the blood libel against the Jews from the Egyptians. This isn't low key wacko stuff either, it's Main-Stream Arab media which is broadcast and distributed around the world. Blessed and given thanks by the imams, political leaders, blessed Ayatollah's.

How much more virulent hate will be required on the behalf of muslims before they change? What will be "our" price in that? Another 3,000 on North American soil? Another jet blown up? Another 50,000 clensed by Janjaweed like groups in Africa. More blown up at the embassies? Another 200 dead at a disco full of Aussie tourists? Another mall blown up in the Philippines.

Really, what will the price be? When will we finally say we've had enough and do something about it? With our first suicide/murder bomber here? With the first 5,000 dead in one attack, with the first 10,000. The first 20,000? What will be the final price and final tally? I'll admit that it scares me to even think like this, it has for several years. Maybe it's because I've seen and experienced this hate in one of the largest 'multicultural' cities in the world. G-d keep and protect those that experience such hate else where.

A price will come where we will say enough is enough. The root cause is the 'religion' or 'ideology' whichever you prefer. It is one in the same, Islam was in truth a religion at one point...it is a fascist ideology bent on ideological & theological perfection. Does that sound familiar? The imams have spoke, the people listen. They either do not speak against, they speak for it, or speak quietly against in fear of their lives. That should tell you something.

Maybe I'll be wrong and that's just fine with me.

Salahudin | 2004-08-21 08:04 | Link

Re: Ali Dashti

''Salahudin: I'm not interested in reading your zillion links. I've actually read most of them before, anyway. I want YOU, personally, to tell me why Islam is such a great religion. Please tell me why I should follow the moral example of a 54 year old man who had sex with a 9 year old child. I'm waiting.....''
==================================

So you admit you CANT refute the long list of links from non muslim sources about Islam being the fastest growing religion on earth !!!

You see Mr Islamophobe, you were trying to give the impression that islam is evil and people are leaving Islam when in fact it was EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE, thousands of WHITE WESTERNERS are converting to Islam every year in Europe, America and indeed all over the world, you see, Allah Alighty said in the Noble Quran about people like you and like the other christian missionaries(like the liar ibn warraq):

''They (the disbelievers ) want to extinguish Allâh's Light ( Islâm ) with their mouths, but Allâh will not allow except that His Light should be perfected even though the Kâfirûn (disbelievers) hate it.'' The Noble Quran 9:32

As to your lie about prophet Muhammad (pbuh ) marrying 9 years old girl, this is crude outright lie that people like you and other christian missionaries liars like to promote, here are the facts:

Our Lady, the mother of believers ,Aishah's Age at Her Marriage was betweeb 14-19 Years of Age and not When She Was 9:

1. The well-known historian Ibn Jareer al-Tabari writes at page 50 of volume 4 of his 'Book of History': "Abu Bakr married two ladies in the days of ignorance (pre-Call era). Fateelah daughter of Abd al-Aza was the first, from whom Abdullah and Asma were born. Umm-i-Rooman was the second, from whom Abd al-Rahman and ‘Aishah were born. All the four children of Abu Bakr were born in the days of ignorance (Jahiliyyah, i.e., pre-Islamic days) from the above-named two ladies.

2. It is a well-known fact of history, that Abu Bakr’s son Abd al-Rahman fought against the Muslims in the battle of Badr. His age at that time was 21-22 years, and although he was older than ‘Aishah, there is no evidence to show that the difference between their ages was more than three or four years. This fact lends support to the view that Hazrat ‘Aishah was born four or five years before the Call.

3. The well-known historian and scholar ‘Allama ‘Imad-ud-Deen Ibn Katheer writes in his 'Al-Badayah' about Sayedah Asma’ daughter of Hazrat Abu Bakr’ (Allah be pleased with him) (and we hope Maulana Syed Abul Ala Maududi must have seen it as he referred to 'Al-Badaya' in his article): Asma’ died in 73 A.H. at the age of 100 years. She was ten years older than her sister ‘Aishah. Now according to this report ‘Asma’ would have been 27-28 years old at the time of Hijrah and since she was ten years older than Sayedah ‘Aishah, therefore the age of Sayedah ‘Aishah would have been 17 or 18 years at the time of Hijrah. Accordingly, her birth falls about four or five years before the Call, and her age at the time of the consummation of marriage in 2 A.H. will work out to 19-20 years.

4. The author of the well-known collection of Hadith 'Mishkat al-Masabeeh', Sheikh Waheed-ud-Deen, writes in his well-known book 'Ahmal fi Asma’ al-Rijjal':

"At the time of the consummation of her marriage Sayedah ‘Aishah’s age was not less than 14-19 years."

http://www.answering-christianity.com/aishahage.htm

Sandy P | 2004-08-21 08:06 | Link

Found on one of Bjorn's fav sites, LGF:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14744

The Centrality of Jihad in Islam

Salahudin | 2004-08-21 08:12 | Link

Re: Lydia

''Salahudin is a prime example of the effects of the Arab Neurosis: blame everything on the West, yet have eyes only for the West, because the West is deemed as validating the existence of Arab culture. ''
=====================================

What a pathetic comment ! who should be blamed for invading Iraq and killing 30,000 innocent Muslims there ?????

Who should be blamed for invading Afghanistan and killing 15,000 innocent Muslims there ?

Who should be blamed for dumping the jews in Palestine and creating the terrorist state of Israel ?

Who should be blamed for the Israeli aggression against the arabs in 1967 which killed 12,000 innocent Muslims ?

Who should be blamed for invading Lebanon in 1982 killing 17,000 innocent Muslims ?

Who should be blamed for the sanctions against Iraq which killed 1.5 million innocent Iraqi childern ?

I tell you what, why you dont blame the arabs for the holocaust as well ????

You wrote:

''If only Arab culture had something to offer to the West, other than oil. Yet it does not. Arabs are painfully aware of this, and wind up spending time thinking of new ways to become victims of the West, in order to be noticed by it.''
==============================

Few months back, there was a racist British TV presenter who made your same comments about the Arabs, here is what the famous British newspaper, The Guardian wrote in response:

What have the Arabs ever done for us?

Zero, just to begin with, and incalculably more than daytime-TV presenters, writes Derek Brown

[**Long Guardian article DELETED. See here for explanation. -BS 21/8]

Source : http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1123787,00.html

I hope the above article will educate you litte bit, enjoy :)

Peace be with you.

Salahudin | 2004-08-21 08:22 | Link

Re: jimmytheclaw, earth

You wrote:

''ahh words of wisdom from iron fist. ok 1 more link to memri''
==============================

I notice you always link to well known hate sites and anti muslim racist thugs ( you always link to frontpagemag, faithfreedom and now MEMRI )

Dont you have any NUETURAL sources ???

Let me educate you about MEMRI:

The truth about MEMRI

PMWATCH -- August 13, 2002 -- Alongside Daniel Pipes, Steve Emerson, Dennis Ross, the dynamic trio of Alon Pinkas, Dore Gold, and Ra'naan Ghissin, and their Godfather, Benjmain Netanyahu, stands MEMRI -- the Middle East Media Research Institute -- an outfit that poses as a neutral, non-partisan translation service, but is in fact, as the article by Brian Whitaker below clearly shows, an organization dedicated to showing Arabs in the worst light possible.

The co-founder and president of MEMRI, as the article tells us, is an Israeli colonel named Yigal Carmon, 22 years veteran in the Israeli military intelligence, who served as counter-terrorism adviser to two Israeli prime ministers, Yitzhak Shamir and Yitzhak Rabin.

As the article also tells us, "the institute also emphasises 'the continuing relevance of Zionism to the Jewish people and to the state of Israel'".

Please make sure that the media is made aware of the fact that MEMRI is a propaganda arm of the Israeli PR machine.

Drop them a note by adding your note to the article and clicking "send".

Palestine Media Watch
http://www.pmwatch.org
(610) 993 - 0608

THE ARTICLE FROM THE GUARDIAN ABOUT THE JEWISH ISRAELI MEMRI:

Tthe Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,773258,00.html

[**Long Guardian article DELETED. Salahudin: Read the comment rules at the bottom of the page before posting again. Posting entire articles in this forum is a copyright violation, and I also consider it noise. Quote a paragraph or two, and leave the URL for those who want to read the rest. Btw: If you use HTML for the links more people are likely to follow them. - BS 21/8]

Sandy P | 2004-08-21 08:22 | Link

--this is of course great fallacy otherwise how can you explain the fact that Muslims dont hate the chinese for example ? arent the chinse infidels as well ?--

Really??

So the splodydopes on the border are doing it because????

And :

"Meanwhile 1.5 million inncoent Iraqi MUSLIM childern died under brutal American sanction."

No, they did not. Matt Welch researched this thoroughly for this Reason article, and cites figures of 100-300 000 deaths. That's bad, but no excuse to pull numbers out of the air.
--

Sorry, in light of the $10 BILLION UN Oil for Terrorists/Palaces non-scandal, I deny this. Blame squarely on Saddam, but it always was, all he ever had to do was comply. Matt's article was written before this came to light.

---

...Moreover, continues Tibi, when Muslims disseminate Islam through violent means, that is not war (harb), as that word only describes the use of force by non-Muslims. Islamic wars are acts of "opening" the world to Islam. "[T]hose who resist Islam cause wars and are responsible for them."

In other words, simply by the act of existing, the entire non-Islamic world is equated with war. That is why Muslims call it the Dar al-Harb, the Realm of War. Yet when Muslims wage jihad, they are doing it to bring about the peace of universal Islam. So whatever Muslims do, is by definition peace, and whatever infidels do, is by definition war. This explains, by the way, why "moderate" Muslims almost never admit that Muslim terrorists are terrorists. It is because jihad itself is not war, but a way of pursuing peace. By such manipulations of language and such massive double standards, Islam reveals itself as a closed system that precludes any critical thought about itself, as well as any fair and honest dealings with non-Muslims....

And they're coming in via Pakland bacause???

Sandy P. | 2004-08-21 08:31 | Link

--We have our OWN form of democrasy, we have the Islamic shoura.--

And it's worked so well....

Salahudin | 2004-08-21 08:49 | Link

Re: Mashiki , Canada

You wrote:

''I figured I might as well dive into this. I've read the earlier comments and all, banning Islam...I couldn't care. I have a feeling that it will either reform, or we'll end up wiping out massive sections of the population in a world war.''
==============================

Most of the hate and the incitment against Islam and Muslims are coming from hateful jews like youtself and evangelical christian liars..and because I am used to your lies and hate, let me refute what you wrote in details:

You wrote:

''It's not a pleasent thought, then again neither are the things that are passed at the madrassahs that the Saudi's or Egyptians fund all over the world.''
=================================

And how do you know what these madrasaahs are teaching ?? have you been there ? do you have any proof from NUTUERAL sources about what these schools teach ???????

You wrote:

''Ask yourself, how many in Europe teach that all other relgions but Islam are false.''
============================

Oh Yeah, I am sure Christian and jewish schools in England, France, Italy, Spain and Poland for example teach their students that Islam is TRUE religion and that Muhammad is true prophet and Muslims will go to paradise, right ?????????

You wrote:

'' Then ask how many of these schools teach that these 'false' worshipper's must be converted or die. ''
==========================

NONESENSE. Since you dont have ANY proof from NUTUERAL non jewish non evangelical sources that these schools really teach what you falsely try to tell us, I advice you to get out from your dark hole and start searching for alternative news, maybe this cloud of hate and islamophobia hanging over your head will start to go away.

You wrote:

''Recently there were several in the US that were teaching this.''
============================

PROOF ?????? ( dont forget I dont accept anti muslim racist christian or jewish nazi hate sites )

You wrote:

'' People were quite angry at this, how many in Europe? How many around the world? What do you call it when you tell someone that your view is the "only" view, and all others are false? Indoctrination. ''
==============================

What do you call it when christians teach their childern that ONLY THROUGH CHRIST salvation can be attained ????

What do you call it when evangelical christians teach and preach that Islam is evil religion ????

What do you call it when jewish terrorists and nazi supporters teach that Islam is evil and must be eradicated ????

I bet you have NO answer.

You wrote:

''How about the media from these Arab countries which is passed around? Here from the Saudi Armed Forces: "The majority of revolutions, coups d'etat, and wars which have occurred in the world [in the past], those that are occurring, and those that will occur, are almost entirely the handiwork of the Jews. They [the Jews] turned to [these methods] in order to implement the injunctions of the fabricated Torah, the Talmud, and the 'Protocols [of the Elders of Zion'], all of which command the destruction of all non-Jews in order to achieve their goal - namely, world domination.''
=================================

I read and write Arabic fluently, do you have the Saudi SOURCE ??? I guess this ALLEGED article was written in ARABIC, right ? if so, can you give me the SOURCE ?????????

I am sure you cant because it does NOT exist, it is only another jewish LIE promoted by MEMRI.

You wrote:

''By all means, scan through the rest of Memri. ''
==========================

I already exposed this jewish islamophobic lying machine caled MEMRI, here is the article again from the famous NON MUSLIM BRITISH newspaper, The Guardian :

Selective Memri
Brian Whitaker investigates whether the 'independent' media institute that translates the Arabic newspapers is quite what it seems Monday August 12 2002
The Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,773258,00.html

ENJOY :)

You wrote:

''Really, what will the price be?''
==========================

The price will be for the jews to get the hell out from our land in Gaza, the west bank, the Golan heights and to go back to Eastern Europe where they came from.

Also for the Americans to get the hell out from Iraq and Afghanistan and stop blindly supporting the terrorist state of Israel, then and only then, you can ask to live in Peace with the 2 billion muslim living in this world.

You wrote:

''Maybe it's because I've seen and experienced this hate in one of the largest 'multicultural' cities in the world. G-d keep and protect those that experience such hate else where.''
=================================

I am not surprised at all seeing hateful jews like yourself spitting all this hate against Islam and Muslims, let us read what your holy book, the TALMUD teachs, shall we ?

Jews are Divine:

Sanhedrin 58b. If a heathen (Gentile) hits a Jew, the Gentile must be killed. Hitting a Jew is the same as hitting God.

It's O.K. to Cheat Non-Jews:

Sanhedrin 57a. A Jew need not pay a Gentile ("Cuthean") the wages owed him for work.

Jews Have Superior Legal Status:

Baba Kamma 37b. "If an ox of an Israelite gores an ox of a Canaanite there is no liability; but if an ox of a Canaanite gores an ox of an Israelite ... the payment is to be in full."

Jews May Steal from Non-Jews:

Baba Mezia 24a. If a Jew finds an object lost by a Gentile ("heathen") it does not have to be returned. (Affirmed also in Baba Kamma 113b).

Sanhedrin 76a. God will not spare a Jew who "marries his daughter to an old man or takes a wife for his infant son or returns a lost article to a Cuthean ... "

Jews May Rob and Kill Non-Jews:

Sanhedrin 57a. When a Jew murders a Gentile ("Cuthean"), there will be no death penalty. What a Jew steals from a Gentile he may keep.

Baba Kamma 37b. Gentiles are outside the protection of the law and God has "exposed their money to Israel."

Jews May Lie to Non-Jews:

Baba Kamma 113a. Jews may use lies ("subterfuges") to circumvent a Gentile.

Non-Jewish Children Sub-Human:

Yebamoth 98a. All Gentile children are animals.

Abodah Zarah 36b. Gentile girls are in a state of niddah (filth) from birth.

Abodah Zarah 22a-22b. Gentiles prefer sex with cows.

I challenge you to refute what your hateful holy book preaches against anyone who is not jew !!!

You wrote:

''A price will come where we will say enough is enough. The root cause is the 'religion' or 'ideology' whichever you prefer. It is one in the same, Islam was in truth a religion at one point...it is a fascist ideology bent on ideological & theological perfection.''
================================

Said the jew who follow the terrorist bloody holy book, The Talmud !!!! very interesting !!!

You wrote:

'' Does that sound familiar? The imams have spoke, the people listen. They either do not speak against, they speak for it, or speak quietly against in fear of their lives. That should tell you something.''
==================================

And since you are jew, can you explain to us these STATEMENTS of HATE which were produced by famous JEWISH LEADERS AND RABBAIS against Arabs and Muslims:

1. "There is a huge gap between us (Jews) and our enemies not just in ability but in morality, culture, sanctity of life, and conscience. They are our neighbors here, but it seems as if at a distance of a few hundred meters away, there are people who do not belong to our continent, to our world, but actually belong to a different galaxy." Israeli president Moshe Katsav. The Jerusalem Post, May 10, 2001
2. "The Palestinians are like crocodiles, the more you give them meat, they want more".... Ehud Barak, Prime Minister of Israel at the time - August 28, 2000. Reported in the Jerusalem Post August 30, 2000

3. " [The Palestinians are] beasts walking on two legs." Menahim Begin, speech to the Knesset, quoted in Amnon Kapeliouk, "Begin and the Beasts". New Statesman, 25 June 1982.

4. "The Palestinians" would be crushed like grasshoppers ... heads smashed against the boulders and walls." " Isreali Prime Minister (at the time) in a speech to Jewish settlers New York Times April 1, 1988

5. "When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle." Raphael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defence Forces, New York Times, 14 April 1983.

6. "How can we return the occupied territories? There is nobody to return them to." Golda Maier, March 8, 1969.

7. "There was no such thing as Palestinians, they never existed." Golda Maier Israeli Prime Minister June 15, 1969

8. "The thesis that the danger of genocide was hanging over us in June 1967 and that Israel was fighting for its physical existence is only bluff, which was born and developed after the war." Israeli General Matityahu Peled, Ha'aretz, 19 March 1972.

9. David Ben Gurion (the first Israeli Prime Minister): "If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti - Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault ? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?" Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox), pp121.

10. Ben Gurion also warned in 1948 : "We must do everything to insure they ( the Palestinians) never do return." Assuring his fellow Zionists that Palestinians will never come back to their homes. "The old will die and the young will forget."

11. "We have to kill all the Palestinians unless they are resigned to live here as slaves." Chairman Heilbrun of the Committee for the Re-election of General Shlomo Lahat, the mayor of Tel Aviv, October 1983.

12. "Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." - Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001, to Shimon Peres, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio. (Certainly the FBI's cover-up of the Israeli spy ring/phone tap scandal suggests that Mr. Sharon may not have been joking.)

13. "We declare openly that the Arabs have no right to settle on even one centimeter of Eretz Israel... Force is all they do or ever will understand. We shall use the ultimate force until the Palestinians come crawling to us on all fours." Rafael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defense Forces - Gad Becker, Yediot Ahronot 13 April 1983, New York Times 14 April 1983.

14. "We must do everything to ensure they [the Palestinian refugees] never do return" David Ben-Gurion, in his diary, 18 July 1948, quoted in Michael Bar Zohar's Ben-Gurion: the Armed Prophet, Prentice-Hall, 1967, p. 157.

15. "We should prepare to go over to the offensive. Our aim is to smash Lebanon, Trans-Jordan, and Syria. The weak point is Lebanon, for the Moslem regime is artificial and easy for us to undermine. We shall establish a Christian state there, and then we will smash the Arab Legion, eliminate Trans-Jordan; Syria will fall to us. We then bomb and move on and take Port Said, Alexandria and Sinai." David Ben-Gurion, May 1948, to the General Staff. From Ben-Gurion, A Biography, by Michael Ben-Zohar, Delacorte, New York 1978.

16. "We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population." Israel Koenig, "The Koenig Memorandum"

17. "Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population." Moshe Dayan, address to the Technion, Haifa, reported in Haaretz, April 4, 1969.

18. "We walked outside, Ben-Gurion accompanying us. Allon repeated his question, What is to be done with the Palestinian population?' Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said 'Drive them out!'" Yitzhak Rabin, leaked censored version of Rabin memoirs, published in the New York Times, 23 October 1979.

19. Rabin's description of the conquest of Lydda, after the completion of Plan Dalet. "We shall reduce the Arab population to a community of woodcutters and waiters" Uri Lubrani, PM Ben-Gurion's special adviser on Arab Affairs, 1960. From "The Arabs in Israel" by Sabri Jiryas.

20. "There are some who believe that the non-Jewish population, even in a high percentage, within our borders will be more effectively under our surveillance; and there are some who believe the contrary, i.e., that it is easier to carry out surveillance over the activities of a neighbor than over those of a tenant. [I] tend to support the latter view and have an additional argument:...the need to sustain the character of the state which will henceforth be Jewish...with a non-Jewish minority limited to 15 percent. I had already reached this fundamental position as early as 1940 [and] it is entered in my diary." Joseph Weitz, head of the Jewish Agency's Colonization Department. From Israel: an Apartheid State by Uri Davis, p.5.

21. "Everybody has to move, run and grab as many hilltops as they can to enlarge the settlements because everything we take now will stay ours... Everything we don't grab will go to them." Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of militants from the extreme right-wing Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, November 15, 1998.

22. "It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism,colonialization or Jewish State without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands." Yoram Bar Porath, Yediot Aahronot, of 14 July 1972.

23. "Spirit the penniless population across the frontier by denying it employment... Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly." Theodore Herzl, founder of the World Zionist Organization, speaking of the Arabs of Palestine,Complete Diaries, June 12, 1895 entry.

24. "One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail." -- Rabbi Yaacov Perrin, Feb. 27, 1994 [Source: N.Y. Times, Feb. 28, 1994, p. 1]

25. "We Jews regard our race as superior to all humanity, and look forward, not to its ultimate union with other races, but to its triumph over them." (Goldwin Smith, Jewish Professor of Modern History at Oxford University, October, 1981)

26. "We Jews, we are the destroyers and will remain the destroyers. Nothing you can do will meet our demands and needs. We will forever destroy because we want a world of our own." (You Gentiles, by Jewish Author Maurice Samuels, p. 155).

27. "We will have a world government whether you like it or not. The only question is whether that government will be achieved by conquest or consent." (Jewish Banker Paul Warburg, February 17, 1950, as he testified before the U.S. Senate).

28. "We will establish ourselves in Palestine whether you like it or not...You can hasten our arrival or you can equally retard it. It is however better for you to help us so as to avoid our constructive powers being turned into a destructive power which will overthrow the world." (Chaim Weizmann, Published in "Judische Rundschau," No. 4, 1920)

and finally LOOK AT THIS PICTURE and tell us WHY YOU DONT TALK AND CONDEMN THIS FORM OF JEWISH BARABRIC HATE AGAINST ARABS AND MUSLIMS ?

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/apartheid.jpg

Rune Kristian Viken, Oslo | 2004-08-21 09:18 | Link

Okay, this is going to be a quite long refute. I'll try to pick Salahudin's posts to shreds once and for all. Oh, and Salahudin - please stop posting long lists of links. I'm not interested in link-farms - and I can reply with link-farms on "why Islam is Bad!" - they don't add to the discussion. You cannot realistically expect a single person to read all the links in a large list of links.

Sahlahudin:
The reason why muslims hate America and some AGGRESSIVE terrorist western countries is because they kill, oppress and terrorize muslims.

As Bjørn has pointed out. The US has helped muslims in Afghanistan - to chase out russians. They helped chasing out Iraq from Kuwait. They helped in Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo.

You reply by pointing at: Shaking Hands with the enemy," Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983.

First off, in 1983 Iraq was at war with Iran. The US supported what it then considered 'the lesser evil' - which of course was Iraq and Saddam. Later, when the Iran-Iraq war was over, when Iraq inavded Kuwait, the US did no longer support Saddam. They tried to remove him in '91, failed, and finally managed to remove the dicatator now recently.

It was _Saddam Hussein_ that terrorized muslims. USA is the liberators, not the terrorists. The US has freed Iraq from twenty years of hell. You point at how many died during the UN imposed sanctions. Need I remind you that The UN is not the same as the US?

The following pictures reveal the truth about the barbaric attacks that were done by the United States of America's Armed forces against the Muslim Iraqi civilians in Southern Iraq.

.. Then you link to a lot of grotesque pictures. Yes. Terrible things happens in a war. I'm pretty sure you can dig up similiarly or more brutal pictures of the victims of Saddam Hussein. You don't prove anything by link-farming a bunch of pictures.

The United States used what is called "Uranium Bombs" against the unarmed Iraqi Civilians. The Deplete Uranium Bombs are exactly small Atomic Bombs!!.

This has been refuted by others. It is disputed very Depleted Uranium is dangerious or not. From what I remember when reading up about it, it may be a tad unhealthy if the bullets explode and you breathe the dust. On the other hand, if you're that close to an impacting DU-bullet, chances is that it went through you and you're dead anyways.

Calling them small Atomic Bombs is nothing short of ridiculous.

Muslims hate and resent AMERICA first and formost for its support for terrorism (Israel ) and its aggression and killings of Muslims.

We've covered the "aggression and killings of Muslims" in the above paragraphs, and uncovered that the entire argument in reality is nothing short of bullshit. The US has helped muslims repeatedly. Yes, there has been some wars - with muslim casualties - but in the end, muslims has been the beneficiaries of the war. The US has gone to war to liberate muslims, sacrificing their own young soldiers.

Now, your claim about "support for terrorism (Israel )". Now we get into the entire dirty debate about palestine vs Israel. There is in reality sort of a civil war between the two nations. Israel is holding back, trying not to use excessive force - while some palestinian terrorist groups repeatedly targets civilians. I've seen jews post similiar "link-farms" about jews that has died, as you did in your post about muslims that has died in Iraq. Guess what? The link farms are irrelevant. They only show the gruesome picture of violence.

However, if the arab world truly cared about the palestinians, why have Jordan refused to let the palestinians in refugee camps between Israel and Jordan enter the country? Why do Jordan continue to use those palestinians as a political tool?

Israel was created by the UN. It's there to stay. They are defending themselves against palestinian terrorists, and some label the way they defend themselves as terrorism. Israel will continue to be supported by both the US and other western countries - but we will also ask them to tone down the violence. However, the palestinians also need to tone down their violence.

On ONE CENTURY of oppression, killing and terrorism against Muslims, do you want details ?
Yes, I am with those muslims who resent and hate AMERICA first and formost for what it did and doing right now in many parts of the muslim world.

This seems to be well covered and the details seem to be that your view on this is totally warped. You refuse to see the facts of the matter, and you've chosen an enemy (the US) without really having a good reason. I ask you to think this through.

Bin laden grievances are shared by nearly every muslim on earth, his cause is endoresed by nearly every muslim on earth but his METHODS are REJECTED by nearly every muslim on earth.

If 1.3 billion people actually can't think straight, then it's a tad worrisome. Furthermore, it's a tad worrisome that you're a bin-laden appologist. If you're representative for the rest of the muslims of the world, which I don't think you are, I'm afraid the LGF crowd is quite right in the matter that Islam is a cancer that need to be removed.

You got that wrong, the US helped the Mujahideen fight the ''SOVIET UNION'' not for the sake of the muslims but for the sake of weakning and defeating the SOVIETS.

What's your point here exactly? The US still helped muslims. Their motivations may not have been pure, but so what?

So what? The US still helped a muslim country that was invaded!

invading Iraq and Afghanista resulted in the death of some 50,000 INNOCENT MUSLIMS combind ! what do you call that ?

No. A huge lot of those was not civilians, but fighters. Furthermore, there are always civilian casualties in a war. However, how many were killed by the oppressive Taliban regime? How many culture heritages was destroyed by Taliban? How many oppressive laws did the Taliban impose? How many Kurds were gassed by Saddam? How many civilians were killed and raped by the sons of Saddam? In the long run, the US has probably _SAVED_ civilan lives by removing Taliban and Saddam.

Then, when it's argued that the US is helping building democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq - you say : Do you really buy this ? building democracies ? only when pigs start flying.. This contradicts the current state of affairs, as the US could have pulled out of both Afghanistan and Iraq after completing the 'war'. They have not. They're staying put to rebuild democratic governments. After a while, you claim that democracy is really demon-crazy, and that you want shoura. You're flip-flopping between arguments, not really making any sense.

Indeed, maybe I used the wrong word but can you explain why then 1.5 million Iraqi childern died many of them died with 'strange' cancer ???

You make it sound like a huge number has died by strange cancer because of DU-bullets. Could you please cite studies that find a statistically significant increase in these 'strange cancers' before and after the DU-bullets, that can be explicitly linked to such DU-bullet use - and not, for example, Saddam's chemical weapons experiments?

Can you tell me why it is banned then ??? and why the American criminals used it in the first place ??

It is not banned for the US. They've not signed any such treaty. Please don't make things up.

What do you call the 30,000 innocent iraqi Muslims killed so far by your 'terrorist' army ?? arent they victims ? or arent only victims when they are Americans ????

How about the 15,000 innocent Afghani Muslims who were killed by your 'barbaric' army, arent they victims ????

How about the thousands of Muslims killed in Palestine by jewish terrorists using your weapons ? arent they victims ?????

All this has been answered above, and the answers do not need to be repeated.

Oh I see, I think you mean the Iraqis should take blame for the invasion of their country, right ? and the same applie for the Afghanis ?

Nah, Saddam is to be blamed for the invasion of Iraq. Taliban is to be blamed for the invasion of Afghanistan. The US is to be credited for sacrificing their own soldiers to remove these brutal dictatorships.

and since we are at it, How about the Palestineans taking blame for the HOLOCAUST and the establishement of the terrorist state of Israel on their land ???

The UN sanctioned this. Israel is there to stay. The Palestinians and Israel need to resolve this themselves. It will probably take a while longer.

Oh yeah, we have seen the example of Argentina and how they tried to follow the blood-sucking capitalist system just to end up nearly bankrupt.

It all depends on how it is implemented. This, however, is a huge discussion in economics. It's not relevant for the current dicussion.

'' Indeed some 60% of women in Moslem countries are, according to the UN illiterate.''
============================

Indeed 75 % of Americans (men and women ) are functionally ILLITERATE:

There is quite a differnece between "functionally illiterate" and "illiterate". Functionally illiterate means that you've got problems reading official forms, and so forth. There is a _huge_ difference between not being able to read, and not being able to comprehend what you're reading. I'm quite sure that if we make a test on how many _functionally illiterate_ people that exist, you would get a huge number in most nations of the world. In Norway we used to have a huge bunch of functional illiterate people every time they needed to fill out their tax returns. The process, however, has been simplified.

The issue is this: AMERICA knew saddam was killing his OWN people and yet they helped and kept supporting him, any comment on this ??

This was during the Iran-Iraq war. The US supported what they thought of as the lesser evil. You may of course disagree, however, it was the right thing to do.

Let me remind you that for half a century, Muslims in Palestine were being killed at the hands of the jewish terrorists, why America did not interfene ?????

Why should the US intervene against Israels fight against terrorism?

When replying to me when I reject your argument that Norwegians would react negatively to being bombed by 'allies' - I referred you to WWII. You forgot to answer that part, but instead ranted on about:

It is worth noting that both these regimes were nourished and supported by the USA and both were KILLING their own people.

We dont look at the Americans as liberators but as killers and terrorists specially their blind support for the terrorist state of Israel.

So, you think it would've been better for the US to let Iran and Iraq duke it out without interference for year after year? You think it would've been "more okay" for the US not to have supplied Saddam with weapons during the Iran-Iraq war? Well, please do remember that Soviet did supply weapons to Iraq, and that the US needed to stay on Iraqs good side during the cold war. One wouldn't exactly want the Soviets to gain a foothold in Iraq (the reason should be obvious).

Furthermore, you think it was bad for the US to help Afghanistan to drive out the Soviet? Why?

Then you argue about their support for Israel yet again. *sigh*.

Do you really think the US was concerned about the 'peace' and 'stability ' or about the OIL supplies ?????

Both.

Rumsfeld was then the special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, he was not private citizen and he was no temporarily employed by Regan, Can you please be more appreciative of our intelligence ?

He was at that time the president of a pharmaceutical company - but was temporarily the employed by Reagen as a special envoy. Check your facts.

Then you continue that post by typing in a long list of banned articles during the UN imposed sanctions, and then goes on post a huge list of quotes by so called "authorities", fragmenting the debate into a zillion different sub-debates, instead of concentrating on the current debate.

As I said you are building your conclusions on PERCEIVED assumptions which are NOT true, they are from your own immagination.

From what I see, you are building YOUR conclusions on PERCEIVED assumptions which are NOT true, which are from YOUR own immagination. Now, instead of such attacks back and forth - bring forth arguments against what he's saying instead of rejecting them with stupid quotes like that.

DU is internationally banned weapons, why the Americans used it ???

Please find an american signature on those international treaties. Can't? Well, then the US is not banned from using them. You are wrong.

Before you ask for refutation to your lies ( very easy to refute since they are lies ) why not refute the links I gave you in another thread about the SPREAD OF ISLAM all over the world ??

.. Because that is not relevant to what he wants refuted. Who cares whether Islam is spreading or not? It's totally irrelevant!

Even though this is totally irrelevant for the discussion, I want to point out that your argument is illogical. Whether thousands of white westerners are converting to Islam every year in Europe and so forth doesn't tell us anything about whether it is evil or not. Your argument is illogical. It falls in the same hat as "An apple is round. An orange is round. Therefore an apple is an orange". That argument, of course, is not logical.

jimmytheclaw, earth | 2004-08-21 09:19 | Link

ok online ive read the koran ahadiths the sunna and the sira. from what i understand islam is based on these books. ive also read the jewish bible and the king james bible. i find that the islamic faith as practiced now and historicly is the polar opposite of judaism or christianity. when i read the story of mohammed i read the story of a power hungry megalomaniac who took parts of existing religions mixed them all in then proclaimed himself a prophet of god which i found disturbing since god is love and if you learn about god you learn he isn't a slavemaster that demands total submission. he just wants you to love him. now if you want to catch my attention and claim oppression which most muslim countries practice do us all a favor and do like the monks did during the vietnam conflict [one of my most disturbing things as a child was seeing a monk douse himself with gas and set himself on fire] those that grew up in the 60's and 70's most likely seen the monks on the evening news. as for the silent majority of muslims that "claim" peacefull intentions better start talking out because if not after the us or europe lose a major city it will be time to play cowboys and muslims. am i a bigot? no. am i an islamaphobe? no i treat everyone of every faith or ethnicity equally until something happens to change my mind. [9/11 made me rethink and research mohammedism] i say shine the light on islam discuss it bring out all the acts of mohammed let the people be the judge. also remember what john said [forgot exact quote] that many will come and claim to be of god to not judge them just by their words but also by their acts. and after the past few years many more are starting to rethink franklin grahams words on mohammedism.

Rune Kristian Viken, Oslo | 2004-08-21 10:04 | Link

who should be blamed for invading Iraq and killing 30,000 innocent Muslims there ?????

The blame should mainly be placed with Saddam Hussein. Before you pull that picture from 1983 out, remember that it was a war between Iran and Iraq then - and that the US supported the lesser evil.

Who should be blamed for invading Afghanistan and killing 15,000 innocent Muslims there ?

The Taliban, and in retrospect, the Soviet Union for creating the mess in the first place.

Who should be blamed for dumping the jews in Palestine and creating the terrorist state of Israel ?

First, I disagree with you. Israel is not a terrorist state.

In any case, the "blame" here lies on the UN and Britain. The jews were given Israel, the muslims were given Jordan. Also remember that the jews had bought the rights to most of the lands there (from Britain) before the UN created Israel.

Who should be blamed for the Israeli aggression against the arabs in 1967 which killed 12,000 innocent Muslims ?

Check your history. It was a "tad" more complicated than that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Six_Day_War

Yes, Israel did a pre-emptive strike, but in my opinion they couldn't afford to
wait until they were attacked.

Who should be blamed for invading Lebanon in 1982 killing 17,000 innocent Muslims ?

Hezbollah, PLO and others. My father served in the UN as a peace guard in south
ern Lebanon in 1978-1979. Hezbollah had a tendency to shell Israeli forces from
the "safety" of the Lebanese borders. You really can't expect that Israel shou
ld respect the borders when the terrorists did such things.

Oh, and check the wikipedia entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Lebanon_War

Who should be blamed for the sanctions against Iraq which killed 1.5 million innocent Iraqi childern ?

Saddam Hussein should be blamed. It was the United Nations that initiated the s
anctions.

I tell you what, why you dont blame the arabs for the holocaust as well ????

Bullshit argument.

When it comes to what the Arab world has to offer the rest of the world today (from the Guardian article):

He would be compounding his ignorance to do so. More poetry than prose is published in Arabic today. The visual arts are vibrant. Music, both popular and traditional, is flourishing. Calligraphy, that most elegant of arts, continues to fascinate users of the flowing Arabic scripts. Arab cuisine - Lebanese mainly, but increasingly Egyptian and other north African - is being belatedly discovered in the west.

It's not really my forté to argue about what the Arabs give us today, but if this is the best The Guardian can provide, it's purely cultural "goodies". While poetry, music, caligraphy, cuisine and so forth are things we really appreciate, it's not something we really NEED.

How is the arab world when it comes to technology? Science? Research?

Not very good. There may be some products, but not many.

Rune Kristian Viken, Oslo | 2004-08-21 10:17 | Link

Sandy P:

Okay, I'm getting a tad tired of your posts. I'll explain why now:

So the splodydopes on the border are doing it because????

splodydopes?

And they're coming in via Pakland bacause???

Pakland?

And, what was your point?

And it's worked so well....

.. and it is worked so well ..

huh!? What are you trying to say?

Your posts has a tendency to be totally incomprehensible. I've got no idea what you're trying to say - and it's that way with most of your posts. You use slang that is totally unknown to me (and surely other readers). You jump to questions and conclusions I don't see the relevance of.

You need to be more precise, and to drop the slang. Or people like me won't understand what you're trying to say. I've got a _feeling_ that we may be arguing on the same side, but your incomprehensible screeds with slang and so forth are so imprecise that I've got no idea what you're talking about 9 out of 10 times.

So, please, could you sharpen up a tad when you're arguing?

(Oh, and I know that this can be taken as ad.hominem, but in reality i'm just begging you to be clear enough so that I can understand what you're trying to say).

Rune Kristian Viken, Oslo | 2004-08-21 10:39 | Link

Salahudin:

You wrote, in reply to Mashiki:

"Most of the hate and the incitment against Islam and Muslims are coming from hateful jews like youtself and evangelical christian liars..and because I am used to your lies and hate, let me refute what you wrote in details:"

I may be a tad blind, but I can't find the posting where Mashiki claims to be a jew?

Furthermore, let me, for the record, state that I'm neither a jew, nor a christian.

I can only speak for Norway here. We get thought about christianity, Islam, the jewish religion, buddhism, hinduism, and so forth. Special focus is given to christianity - as that is the "state religion" of Norway, but it's not claimed that it necessarily is true, nor that other religions necessarily are false. I know that I was taught that "we don't really know which are true, it's up to you what you want to believe in".

What do you call it when christians teach their childern that ONLY THROUGH CHRIST salvation can be attained ????

Religious indoctrination.

What do you call it when evangelical christians teach and preach that Islam is evil religion ????

Religious intolerance.

What do you call it when jewish terrorists and nazi supporters teach that Islam is evil and must be eradicated ????

Religious intolerance AND hatred.

And let me add another couple of questions.

"What do I call it when Islam claims that it is the only correct religion, and that there is no god but Allah?"

Religious indoctrination.

"What do I call it when muslims claim that Jews are evil?"

Religious intolerance.

"What do I call it when muslims claim that Israel is a terrorist state?"

Religious intolerance AND hatred.

I bet you have NO answer.

At least I've given you plenty.

The price will be for the jews to get the hell out from our land in Gaza, the west bank, the Golan heights and to go back to Eastern Europe where they came from.

If that is the price, I personally call you a hatemonger who promotes religious intolerance.

This may sound stupid, but what is the alternative? What you demand as the price won't happen. Does this mean that we're "at war" in your eyes? If not, what does it mean?

Then you go on by selectively quoting from the Talmud. Should I start to selectively quote from the Qu'ran and the Hadiths? Or should we just try not to go there?

Then you go on by selectively quoting various jews. Should I or others start to selectively quote from what Arafat and other palestinians has said? Or should we just try not to go there?

Ali Dashti | 2004-08-21 12:00 | Link

Sandy P:

"...Moreover, continues Tibi, when Muslims disseminate Islam through violent means, that is not war (harb), as that word only describes the use of force by non-Muslims. Islamic wars are acts of "opening" the world to Islam. "[T]hose who resist Islam cause wars and are responsible for them."

This quote of Bassam Tibi, do you have a link to it? I'd love to have it.

Salahudin | 2004-08-21 12:18 | Link

Re: FelixUSA

''Salahudin: I'm particularly unimpressed by your selective association as the U.S. being the driving force to all that's wrong in the Islamic world. It's as if in your view every other entity in the world doesn't exist, just the U.S. ''
================================

Why you guys take the impression that I blame America for all the wrongs in the islamic world ? where did I say that ?

I am blaming AMERICAN terrorism and its support for the terrorist state of Israel for the current terrorism, this is what I said.

Can you please be more careful when you read I write ?

Salahudin | 2004-08-21 12:41 | Link

Re: Rune Kristian Viken, Oslo

''Salahudin:

You wrote, in reply to Mashiki:

I may be a tad blind, but I can't find the posting where Mashiki claims to be a jew?''
=================================

Only Jews write the word GOD like this G-D .

You wrote:

''Oh Yeah, I am sure Christian and jewish schools in England, France, Italy, Spain and Poland for example teach their students that Islam is TRUE religion and that Muhammad is true prophet and Muslims will go to paradise, right ?????????

I think you missed the point, I am taking about private christian or jewish schools in Europe. the complain from this jew (mashiki ) was that muslim schools teach that only Islam is the true religion ( which is true ) but why he takes issue with this when his own jewish schools teaches that jesus is false prophet and only jews will go to heaven ? do you see the HYPOCRISY here ?

You wrote:

''What do you call it when christians teach their childern that ONLY THROUGH CHRIST salvation can be attained ????

Religious indoctrination.''
==================================

Or maybe religious facts as far as they are concerned !

You wrote:

''What do you call it when evangelical christians teach and preach that Islam is evil religion ????

Religious intolerance.''
============================

Indeed, but for them, it is basics of their beliefs.

You wrote:

''What do you call it when jewish terrorists and nazi supporters teach that Islam is evil and must be eradicated ????

Religious intolerance AND hatred.''
=============================

Indeed, so why jews like him and other islam bashers here DONT talk about what others say against muslims ????????????? why they pick up only what muslims do ??? dont you call that hypocrisy ?

You wrote:

"What do I call it when muslims claim that Israel is a terrorist state?"

Religious intolerance AND hatred.''
===================================

I beg to differ here, Israel is indeed terrorist state as documented by HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, AMNESTY INTERNATION, the fact that Israel is in violation of more than 80 UN resolutions, the fact that 9000 PALESTINEANS are in Israeli prisons are political prisoners, the fact that Israel illegaly occupies the land of 3 neighbouring countires, the fact that Israel is building illegal aparthied wall on palestinean land, the fact that JEWS IN ISRAEL HAVE DIFFERENT CAR PLATES THAN THE PALESTINEANS..the fact that THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT PALESTINEANS HAVE BEEN KILLED IN THE LAST 4 YEARS ALONE.....etc

Do you want more ??????

You wrote:

''I bet you have NO answer.

At least I've given you plenty.''
==================================

My question was for the jew( mashiki ) not for you, unless of course you are using 2 different nicknames !!!

You wrote:

''The price will be for the jews to get the hell out from our land in Gaza, the west bank, the Golan heights and to go back to Eastern Europe where they came from.

If that is the price, I personally call you a hatemonger who promotes religious intolerance.''
===============================

I dont think the Norwegians were called hatemongers when they asked the swedes to leave their land, were they hatemongers ?????????

I bet YOU have no answer.

You wrote:

''This may sound stupid, but what is the alternative? What you demand as the price won't happen. Does this mean that we're "at war" in your eyes? If not, what does it mean?''
==============================

Since you ''claim ? '' you are Norwegian, then you are not occupying our land nor invading our other land in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have NO issue with you nor with NORWAY, so please stay out of it.

Our war is with the American terrorists who kill, torture, rape, imprison, invade and bomb muslims. our war is with the Israeli jewish terrorists who STOLE our land and terrorized and keep terrorizing our life, our war is with every western country that participates in the invasion and the killing of muslims.

Norway did NOT participate in any of the above, so WE MUSLIMS HAVE NOTHING AGAINST NORWAY OR AGAINST THE NORWEGIAN PEOPLE.

We have nothing against the swedes, the finnish, the swizz, the latin Americans, the Canadians, the Chinese, the North Koreans and now the SPANISH. Spain withdrew its soldiers from Iraq, so they are no longer at war with muslims.

You wrote:

''Then you go on by selectively quoting from the Talmud. Should I start to selectively quote from the Qu'ran and the Hadiths? Or should we just try not to go there?''
=================================

Go there and take your time, you can quote from the Quran the way you wish, I am ready to REFUTE you in ' boring' details. but why you want to quote the hadiths ?? we muslims dont recognize many of these hadiths, in fact, the hadith is not holy words of god, they are stories collected some 300 years after the prophet muhammad(pbuh ) death !! I know, you guys love to quote fake fabricated hadiths to defame Islam, right ???

Beside, my questions about the talmud was directed at the jew ( mishaki ), did he appoint you his LAWYER to defend him ?

You claim you are not jew, so why bother ? can you please STAY OUT from this? thank you very much.

You wrote:

''Then you go on by selectively quoting various jews. Should I or others start to selectively quote from what Arafat and other palestinians has said? Or should we just try not to go there?''
================================

You see, your hypocrisy is really disgusting ! you did not say a single word to the jew who started insulting and inciting hatred against Islam but you came here defending him and offering to quote from arafat!! why you dont comment on what these hateful jewish leaders and rabbais said about arabs and muslims ????

UNLESS OF COURSE YOU ARE THE SAME JEW!! :))))))

Rune Kristian Viken, Oslo | 2004-08-21 14:16 | Link

Salahudin:

In reply to my question why you think Mashiki is a jew:

Only Jews write the word GOD like this G-D .

I had no idea. Maybe it is true, maybe it is not. If it is, well, then you may have been right. Never thought about that one - but I'm sure Mashiki himself can confirm or deny whether he is a jew or not.

On the topic of religious schools and their teachings:

If, by chance, Mashiki is a jew AND Mashiki defends jewish religious schools AND your claims about jewish religious schools are correct - then yes, I see a hypocrsiy there.

In that case I will claim that both claims are doing religious indoctrination, which in my eyes is a bad thing.

On that I call religious teaching presented as truth and other teaching false in school "religious indoctrination":

Or maybe religious facts as far as they are concerned

Facts can be proven. The existance of any god can not be proven, it is a belief. By presenting it as a fact and foundation from birth and in schools - it becomes a base for other things. It is thus indoctrination - at least by my standards.

On me stating that I think it is "religious intolerance AND hatred" when "jewish terrorists and nazi supporters" teach that Islam is evil and must be eradicated:

Indeed, so why jews like him and other islam bashers here DONT talk about what others say against muslims ????????????? why they pick up only what muslims do ??? dont you call that hypocrisy ?

Why don't you read what this posting by Bjørn Stærk is all about? Isn't it about exactly that topic? This, and the previous thread? That - on the other hand - doesn't defend your statements in this thread.

Full quote:

"What do I call it when muslims claim that Israel is a terrorist state?"

Religious intolerance AND hatred.''
===================================

Do you want more ??????

I'm not very familiar with Human Rights Watch, except that I seem to remember a lot of cases where I disagree with them. But, let's look at amnesty. They have an agenda, and they say their opinion on all countries. You are attacking Israel specifically.

Amnesty on Israel: http://web.amnesty.org/library/eng-isr/index
Amnesty on Iran: http://web.amnesty.org/library/eng-irn/index
Amnesty on Egypt: http://web.amnesty.org/library/eng-egy/index
Amnesty on Lebanon: http://web.amnesty.org/library/eng-lbn/index
Amnesty on Jordan: http://web.amnesty.org/library/eng-jor/index

Quite a lot on all of them, with least on Jordan.

Amnesty on Norway: http://web.amnesty.org/library/eng-nor/index

Compare the last one to the five above. Quite a difference, isn't it? :)

Israel does indeed do quite a lot that they're criticized by Amnesty for. Amnesty's agenda is to criticize. They do a good job of it. However, Israel is by no means worse than other countries in the area. Why the hatred against Israel in specifics?

Now onto the 80 UN resolutions. Yes, there is quite a lot of them. Lots of them are unfair, and lots of them are irrelevant.

Onto the tiny little "fact" about Israel illegaly occupying the land of three neighbouring countries. This is not a fact. The fact is that Israel is holding that territory in a state of suspension. It would be fully legal for Israel to claim the territories as their own. It would be fully legal for Israel to give it back to their neighbours. The problem arises as they do neither of those things. However, the geneva conventions were not written with a situation such as Israels in mind.

When it comes to the wall - Bjørn has written an excellent piece about it:
/warblog/000559.html
/warblog/000545.html

The different car plates, well, I don't see that as a huge matter, but maybe you do. :)

My question was for the jew( mashiki ) not for you, unless of course you are using 2 different nicknames !!!

I'm Rune Kristian Viken, and I've got no idea who mashiki is. I don't use nicknames in Bjørn's blog.

I dont think the Norwegians were called hatemongers when they asked the swedes to leave their land, were they hatemongers ?????????

I don't think we ever asked the swedes to leave our land - we did however take control over our own land. We didn't, as far as I know, forcibly remove the swedes living in Norway, or ask them to leave. I may be mistaken, though. You on the other hand, demands that the jews leave your country.

Since you ''claim ? '' you are Norwegian, then you are not occupying our land nor invading our other land in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have NO issue with you nor with NORWAY, so please stay out of it.

Hah! You are wrong!

Norway was among the first countries - if not THE first - to send special troops to afghanistan.

We were also accompanying the Brits into Iraq, allthough with sanitary/auxilary forces that were there to rebuild the country.

The americans are not terrorists. They helped the iraqi citizens remove a despot. A dictator. A madman! They removed Saddam and his sons. They put an end to his pillaging of his own people. They removed his sons from their position that they abused to rape and torture innocent people.

Yes, there has been innocent casualties. There always are - in a war.

And Israel did not steal your land. They were given that land by the UN and the brits. Land which they had already bought - if my memory serves me right.

Norway did NOT participate in any of the above, so WE MUSLIMS HAVE NOTHING AGAINST NORWAY OR AGAINST THE NORWEGIAN PEOPLE.

We participated in both the liberation of Afghanistan and in the liberation of Iraq. We participated with special forces in Afghanistan. We participated with - let us call them "rebuilders" in Iraq.

Beside, my questions about the talmud was directed at the jew ( mishaki ), did he appoint you his LAWYER to defend him ?

The question was asked in public, on a public forum. Anyone has the right to answer you here.

You claim you are not jew, so why bother ?

Because:
- I can
- It's interesting to see what you answer.

can you please STAY OUT from this?

No.

I've got no proof that this "Mashiki" or "mishaki" or whatever fellow is a jew. I did not see any inciting of hatred against Islam. YOU on the other hand quotes a lot of jewish extremists. I compare that to quoting from Arafat. In doing so I've already told you that I consider them disgusting extremists in the same way I consider Arafat a disgusting terrorist / extremist.

UNLESS OF COURSE YOU ARE THE SAME JEW!! :))))))

Ridiculous.

Salahudin | 2004-08-21 16:36 | Link

Re: Rune Kristian Viken, Oslo |

''Salahudin:

In reply to my question why you think Mashiki is a jew:

Only Jews write the word GOD like this G-D .

Hateful jews like him who incite hate and terrorism against muslims are too cowards to admit anything.

You wrote:

''
If, by chance, Mashiki is a jew AND Mashiki defends jewish religious schools AND your claims about jewish religious schools are correct - then yes, I see a hypocrsiy there.''
=============================

Thank you, he is JEW.

You wrote:

''The existance of any god can not be proven, it is a belief.''
===========================

I disagree, the existence of God has been proven centuries ago, good morning :)

You wrote:

''
I beg to differ here, Israel is indeed terrorist state as documented by HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, AMNESTY INTERNATION, the fact that Israel is in violation of more than 80 UN resolutions, the fact that 9000 PALESTINEANS are in Israeli prisons are political prisoners, the fact that Israel illegaly occupies the land of 3 neighbouring countires, the fact that Israel is building illegal aparthied wall on palestinean land, the fact that JEWS IN ISRAEL HAVE DIFFERENT CAR PLATES THAN THE PALESTINEANS..the fact that THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT PALESTINEANS HAVE BEEN KILLED IN THE LAST 4 YEARS ALONE.....etc

Do you want more ??????

Israel is terrorist country, it is well known fact all over the world:

Israel world's biggest threat!

"Poll labels Israel world's biggest threat"According to the "Eurobarometer" poll requested by the European Commission
More than two-thirds of EU citizens think that the US-led war was wrong
59 percent of Europeans see Israel as a threat to world peace.

http://www.emjournal.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/aaaanov006.html

''Compare the last one to the five above. Quite a difference, isn't it? :)''
================================

Your comparsion is flawed since you picked one case about one country, can you tell me how many cases aganist the terrorist state of Israel compared with jordan for example ?

You wrote:

''Israel does indeed do quite a lot that they're criticized by Amnesty for. Amnesty's agenda is to criticize. They do a good job of it.''
===========================

RIDICILOUS. they are professional cedible international organization, they are doing superb job highlighting the terrorist activities of the state of israel.

You wrote:

'' However, Israel is by no means worse than other countries in the area. Why the hatred against Israel in specifics?''
==================================

BULLSHIT. show me which other countries in the area occupy the lands of 3 neighbouring countries ?????

Show me which county in the area has huge aresenal of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons ???

Did you know?

1 - THAT, when the Palestine Problem was created by Britain in 1917, more than 90% of the population of Palestine were Arabs, and that there were at that time no more than 56,000 Jews in Palestine?

2 - THAT, more than half of the Jews living in Palestine at that time were recent immigrants, who had come to Palestine in the preceding decades in order to escape persecution in Europe?... And that less than 5% of the population of Palestine were native Palestinian Jews?

3 - THAT, the Arabs of Palestine at that time owned 97.5% of the land, while Jews (native Palestinians and recent immigrants together) owned only 2.5% of the land?

4 - THAT, during the thirty years of British occupation and rule, the Zionists were able to purchase only 3.5% of the land of Palestine, in spite of the encouragement of the British Government?... And that much of this land was transferred to Zionist bodies by the British Government directly, and was not sold by Arab owners?

5 - THAT, therefore, when British passed the Palestine Problem to the United Nations in 1947, Zionists owned no more than 6% of the total land area of Palestine?

6 - THAT, notwithstanding these facts, the General Assembly of the United Nations recommended that a "Jewish State" be established in Palestine?... And that the Assembly granted that proposed "State" about 54% of the total area of the country?

7 - THAT, Israel immediately occupied (and still occupies) 80.48% of the total land area of Palestine?

8 - THAT, this territorial expansion took place, for the most part, before 15 May 1948: i.e., before the formal end of the British forces from Palestine, before the entry of Arab armies to protect Palestinian Arabs, and before the Arab-Israeli war?

9 - THAT, the 1947 recommendation of the General Assembly in favor of the creation of a "Jewish State" was outside the competence of the Assembly under the Charter of the United Nations?

10 - THAT, all attempts by the Arab States and other Asian countries to have the Assembly submit 3the question of constitutionality" of its recommendation to the International Court of Justice for an "advisory opinion" by the Court were rejected or ignored by the Assembly?

11 - THAT, when the Assembly began to experience "second thoughts" over the matter and convened for its second special session in 1948, it failed to reaffirm the 1947 recommendation for the partition of Palestine-thus destroying whatever dubious legality that recommendation for the establishment of a "Jewish State" had had?

12 - THAT, that original 1947 recommendation to create a "Jewish State" in Palestine was approved, at the first vote, only by European, American and Australian States...for every Asian State, and every African State (with the exception of the Union of South Africa) voted against it?...And that, when the vote was cast in plenary session on 29 November 1947, urgent American pressures (which a member of the Truman cabinet described as "bordering onto scandal") had succeeded in prevailing only upon one African country (Liberia), both of which had special vulnerability to American pressures, to abandon their declared opposition?...And that, in other words, the "Jewish State" was planted at the point-of-intersection of Asia and Africa without the free approval of any Middle Eastern, Asian or African country except that Union of South Africa, itself ruled by an alien minority?

13 - THAT, Israel remained, ever since its inception, a total stranger in the emerging world of Afro-Asia; and that Israel has been refused admission to any inter-state conference of Asian, African, Afro-Asian, or Non-Aligned States ever held?

14 - THAT, since the General Armistice Agreements were signed in 1949, Israel has maintained an aggressive policy of waging military attacks across the Armistice Demarcation Lines, repeatedly invading the territories of the neighboring Arab States...And that Israel has been duly rebuked, censured, or condemned for these military attacks by the Security Council of the General Assembly of the United Nations on eleven occasions-five times by the Security Council and six times by the General Assembly?

15 - THAT, no other country in the world, whether member of the United Nations or non-member, has been so frequently condemned by the United Nations?

16 - THAT, no Arab State has ever been condemned by any organ of the United Nations for military attacks upon Israel?

17 - THAT, besides expelling the bulk of the Arab inhabitants of Palestine, and besides constantly attacking the neighboring Arab States, Israel has also consistently harassed the United Nations observers and other personnel stationed along the Armistice Demarcation Lines: It has assassinated the first United Nations Mediator and his military aide; it has detained some truce observers; it has militarily occupied and illegally searched the Headquarters of United Nations personnel; and it has boycotted meetings of the Mixed Armistice Commissions?...

18 - THAT, Israel has additionally imposed a system of apartheid upon the Arabs who stayed in their homeland? More than 90% of these Arabs live in "security zones;" they alone live under martial law, restricting their freedom to travel from village to village or from town to town; their children are denied equal opportunities for education; and they are denied decent opportunities for work, and the right to receive "equal pay for equal work?"

19 - THAT, notwithstanding the foregoing facts, Israel has always been, and still is, widely portrayed in the Western press as the "bastion of democracy" and the "champion of peace" in the Middle East?

20 - THAT, the Western Powers have persisted in declaring their determination to ensure a so-called "arms balance" in the area, as between Israel, on the one hand, and the one-hundred million inhabitants of the thirteen Arab States, on the other hand?... And this unilateral Western doctrine of so-called "arms balance" is no more reasonable than the suggestion that, in the Cuba-U.S.A conflict, there should be "arms balance" as between Cuba and the United States... or that the whole Continent of Africa should not be allowed to acquire more arms than South Africa... or that Mainland China should not be permitted to have more arms than Taiwan... or that the military allowed to acquire more arms than South Africa... and that only thus can peace be safeguarded in the Western Hemisphere, in Africa, in Asia, or in Europe?...

21 - THAT, Israel allots 85% of the water resources in the occupied territories for Jews and the remaining 15% is divided among all Palestinians in the territories? For example in Hebron, 85% of the water is given to about 500 settlers, while 15% must be divided among Hebron's 120,000 Palestinians?

22 - THAT, The United States awards Israel $3 billion in aid each year, more than to any other country in the world: US aid to Israel exceeds the aid the US grants to the whole sub-Sahara Africa?

23 - THAT, GDP, per capita, and consumption per capita in the Occupied Territories have dropped about 15 percent in the West Bank and Gaza since 1993 - that's even with large foreign assistance pouring in, from Europe, mostly?

24 - THAT, Up until 1993, the U.S. and Israel permitted humanitarian aid to come into the territories. UN humanitarian aid was permitted into the West Bank and Gaza. In 1993, that was restricted?

25 - THAT, Israel is the only country in the Middle East that has nuclear weapons?

26 - THAT, Israel is the only country in the Middle East that refuses to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and bars international inspections from its sites?

27 - THAT, Israel currently occupies territories of two sovereign nations (Lebanon and Syria) in defiance of United Nations Security Council resolutions?

28 - THAT, High-ranking military officers in the Israeli Defense Forces have admitted publicly that unarmed prisoners of war were executed by the IDF?

29 - THAT, Israel refuses to prosecute its soldiers who have acknowledged executing prisoners of war?

30 - THAT, Israel routinely confiscates bank accounts, businesses, and land from Palestinians and refuses to pay compensation to those who suffer the confiscation?

31 - THAT, Israel stands in defiance of 69 United Nations Security Council Resolutions?

32 - THAT, Israel's current prime minister, Ariel Sharon, was found by an Israeli court to be "personally responsible" for the Sabra and Shatilla massacres in Lebanon in which thousands of unarmed Palestinian refugees were slaughtered in 1982?

33 - THAT, Today's Israel sits on the former sites of more than 400 destroyed Palestinian villages, and that the Israelis renamed almost every physical site in the country to cover up the traces?

34 - THAT, Ariel Sharon's coalition government includes a party -- Molodet -- which advocates expelling all [of the over two million] Palestinians from [their homes in] the occupied territories?

35 - THAT, Israel's illegal settlement-building in the Occupied Palestinian territories more than doubled in the eight years since the Oslo agreements?

36 - THAT, Illegal settlement building under Prime Minister Barak doubled compared to settlement building under Prime Minister Netanyahu?

37 - THAT, More illegal settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories were built under Prime Minister Barak than at any other time in the history of Israel's occupation of Palestinian land?

38 - THAT, Despite a ban on torture by Israel's High Court of Justice, torture has continued by Shin Bet interrogators on Palestinian prisoners?

39 - THAT, Palestinian refugees make up the largest refugee population in the world?

40 - THAT, Israeli military checkpoints surround every Palestinian population center in violation of the Oslo Accords?

41 - THAT, The right of self-determination is guaranteed to every human being under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (December, 1948), yet Palestinians were/are expected to negotiate for this right under the Oslo Accords?

Source:

The Israeli Holocaust Against the Palestinians by Michael Hoffman and Prof. Moshe Lieberman
6 x 9 paperback. 110 pages. A MUST READ!!

You wrote:

''Now onto the 80 UN resolutions. Yes, there is quite a lot of them. Lots of them are unfair, and lots of them are irrelevant.''
=================================

Nonesense. are you saying that these UN resoultions which are adopted by the MAJORITY OF THE WORLD are not fair ????? GIVE ME A BREAK, you are sounding very pathetic here.

You wrote:

''
Onto the tiny little "fact" about Israel illegaly occupying the land of three neighbouring countries. This is not a fact. The fact is that Israel is holding that territory in a state of suspension. It would be fully legal for Israel to claim the territories as their own. ''
============================

Sorry but only retards and mentally disturped people can make your claim.

Where are we living ? in a jungle ? where you can attack your neighbour steal his land and claim it yours ?? OK THEN, Sweden shall invade Norway and keep it swedish land, how about that ?????????? PATHETIC.

You wrote:

''It would be fully legal for Israel to give it back to their neighbours.''
==============================

Oh yeah, like it will be fully legal for A THIEF to return what he stole to its rightful owners !!!!!!

You wrote:

'' The problem arises as they do neither of those things. However, the geneva conventions were not written with a situation such as Israels in mind.''
==================================

I think you dont even know what is Geneva convention :))))

You wrote:

''The different car plates, well, I don't see that as a huge matter, but maybe you do. :)''
==================================

OH REALLY ?? DOESNT THAT REMIND YOU OF THE NAZIS IN GERMANY MARKING THE JEWS WITH SPECAL SIGNS ????? I guess you are saying the nazis were doing nothing wrong, right ?????

You wrote:

''
My question was for the jew( mashiki ) not for you, unless of course you are using 2 different nicknames !!!

I'm Rune Kristian Viken, and I've got no idea who mashiki is. I don't use nicknames in Bjørn's blog.''
===========================

So why you are answering questions NOT directed to you ????????????????

You wrote:

''I dont think the Norwegians were called hatemongers when they asked the swedes to leave their land, were they hatemongers ?????????

You are even ignorant of the basic of your OWN history, I advice you to go read litlle bit about the swedish-norwegian war.

I am asking the jewish thieves who stole my land in Palestine and in Syria to return it back to its rightful owners and leave back to where they came from, in Russia, Germany and Eastern Europe.

You wrote:

''Since you ''claim ? '' you are Norwegian, then you are not occupying our land nor invading our other land in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have NO issue with you nor with NORWAY, so please stay out of it.

Hah! You are wrong!''
==================================

Why I am wrong ? is it because I gave you an answer you cant and will never be able to prove it wrong ????

SHOW ME WHERE THESE MUSLIM EXTRMISTS ATTACKED NORWAY ? SHOW ME WHERE AND WHEN THEY THREATEN NORWAY IN ANYWAY ????

You wrote:

''Norway was among the first countries - if not THE first - to send special troops to afghanistan.''
=============================

You dont even know what you are talking about: let me educate you:

Norway to send troops to Afghanistan, helicopters to Kosovo

Source: Agence France-Presse
Date: 6 May 2004

NOTE THE DATE

Norway said on Friday that it was sending more troops to Afghanistan to reinforce the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) there, the defense ministry said.

http://www.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/0/70f68da25d8389f549256e8d001f5c60?OpenDocument

You are not there invading the country, you are there part of some 34 nations. ISAF has been overseeing security in Kabul since the fall of Taliban regime in late 2001.

You wrote:

''We were also accompanying the Brits into Iraq, allthough with sanitary/auxilary forces that were there to rebuild the country.''
=============================

As far as we are concerned we did not see Norwegian trops killing muslims and bombing them, so my stand hold: we have no issue with you.

You wrote:

''The americans are not terrorists. They helped the iraqi citizens remove a despot.A dictator. A madman! They removed Saddam and his sons. They put an end to his pillaging of his own people. ''
========================

removed a despot they the americans helped and supported !!! make a lot of sense.

removing a despot by killing 30,000 innocent Iraqi muslims ?????????

You wrote:

''Yes, there has been innocent casualties. There always are - in a war.''
===================================

Bullshit, shall I use your same logic to justify 9/11 2000 dead ??? I can claim that these muslim extremists are at war with America !!!!! you see, your argument is 2 way street .

You wrote:

''And Israel did not steal your land. They were given that land by the UN and the brits. Land which they had already bought - if my memory serves me right.''
================================

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL, land bought ?? given by the UN and the UK !! as if Palestine belonged to the brits or the UN to be given to the jews ??????????

You hold very anti semitic views ( anti arab views ) I think you are zionist. scary thing to be :(

You wrote:

''We participated in both the liberation of Afghanistan and in the liberation of Iraq. We participated with special forces in Afghanistan. We participated with - let us call them "rebuilders" in Iraq.''
==================================

You did NOT kill muslims, so you will not be killed.

You wrote:

''Beside, my questions about the talmud was directed at the jew ( mishaki ), did he appoint you his LAWYER to defend him ?

The question was asked in public, on a public forum. Anyone has the right to answer you here.''
================================

NO, you have no right to answer, the question was asked in specific post to specific poster, I did not make the question public. but it's ok since you want to answer it, then GO AHEAD, explain to me the verses written in the talmud which depicts non jews are sub humans ????

You wrote:

''You claim you are not jew, so why bother ?

Because:
- I can
- It's interesting to see what you answer.''
================================

Go on then, ANSWER :)))))

Where is your answer ??????

You wrote:

'can you please STAY OUT from this?

No.'
===========================

Ok then, you have to EXPLAIN THE JEWISH TALMUD THEN, CAN YOU DO THAT ??????????? LOOOOOOOOOL

You wrote:

''I've got no proof that this "Mashiki" or "mishaki" or whatever fellow is a jew. I did not see any inciting of hatred against Islam. ''
=================================

Oh really ??????????? you must be reading the wrong thread then :))))

You wrote:

''YOU on the other hand quotes a lot of jewish extremists. I compare that to quoting from Arafat. In doing so I've already told you that I consider them disgusting extremists in the same way I consider Arafat a disgusting terrorist / extremist.''
============================

Thank you for clarifying that some jewish rabbais and leaders are disgusting extremists, OPPPPSS BE CAREFUL, THE STICK OF ANTI SEMITIC LABEL WILL NOW START HITTING YOU HARD :))))))

Peace be with you.

jimmytheclaw, earth | 2004-08-21 18:13 | Link

QAZI HUSSAIN AHMED:
Controversial politician granted entry

http://pub.tv2.no/nettavisen/english/article267973.ece

see what he said while in pakistan

http://www.media-watch.org/articles/0999/306.html

again i sa "a religion of peace my ass" ROPMA

Susan | 2004-08-21 18:13 | Link

Question for Salahuddin and all Islam-apologists: If it is all right for Salahuddin and millions of other Muslims to be anti-American, why is it wrong for Americans to be anti-Islam?

PS -- I am glad that you, Salahuddin have joined the debate. Now the apologists can get a whiff of what it is like to be exposed to the illogic, irrational "arguments" they are likely to encounter from members of the Religion of Peace. And believe me, he is quite ordinary -- a moderate, in fact.

Rune Kristian Viken, Oslo | 2004-08-21 20:16 | Link

Salahudin:

To my comment: "but I'm sure Mashiki himself can confirm or deny whether he is a jew or not." you replied:

Hateful jews like him who incite hate and terrorism against muslims are too cowards to admit anything.

Excuse me? From what I read in his post he is not inciting neither hate nor terrorism in his post. His attitude seems to be "Fuck it! I just don't care anymore". He is not inciting terrorism at all. Scroll up and re-read his post, and take off your blinders before doing so!

You on the other hand seems to be filled with hatred against this person.

Thank you, he is JEW.

And that you conclude from him writing "G-d" instead of "God". You may of course be right, but I wouldn't jump to conclusions before he confirms or denies it.

I disagree, the existence of God has been proven centuries ago, good morning :)

Okay, tell me the proof then.

Israel is terrorist country, it is well known fact all over the world:

No it is not. And now onto your "argument" to "prove" that is so:

Israel world's biggest threat!

"Poll labels Israel world's biggest threat"According to the "Eurobarometer" poll requested by the European Commission
More than two-thirds of EU citizens think that the US-led war was wrong
59 percent of Europeans see Israel as a threat to world peace.

http://www.emjournal.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/aaaanov006.html

A poll doesn't prove whether something is a fact or not. Five hundred years ago it was a 'well known fact' that the world was flat - and it was heresy to think of it as ball-shaped.

Public opinion isn't necessarily correct. The page you're linking to doesn't even specify how the poll was taken. It doesn't even specify what the question was, and how you should answer the question. I'm damn sure that the question was NOT "Which country is the biggest threat to world?".

When I linked to lists of articles from Amnesty about five different middle eastern countries - and also to the list of articles about Norway, you replied:

Your comparsion is flawed since you picked one case about one country, can you tell me how many cases aganist the terrorist state of Israel compared with jordan for example ?

This proves that you didn't even read what I linked to. I linked to the index pages with all articles about the different countries.

When I come with a specific example with specific links to compare - you manage to actually just skip reading them, and then claim that my comparison is flawed? Well good thing -- because you've just proven that you're dishonest.

On amnesty:
RIDICILOUS. they are professional cedible international organization, they are doing superb job highlighting the terrorist activities of the state of israel

And the terrorist activities of Egypt, Iran, Sudan, Lebanon, and so forth.

I wrote: "However, Israel is by no means worse than other countries in the area. Why the hatred against Israel in specifics?" , to which you replied:

BULLSHIT. show me which other countries in the area occupy the lands of 3 neighbouring countries ?????

Areas which was occupied during defensive war, ie, areas that was legally occupied.

Show me which county in the area has huge aresenal of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons ???

Israel has not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty. They are not bound by it.

Israel has, to my knowledge, not used neither biological or chemical weapons against their enemies, nor their own population. Take a look at Iraq when it comes to use of chemical weapons on their own people.

Then you list 41 points, some which may be valid, most which seems to be totally irrelevant for the discussion at hand. I'm not going to answer them, as you're again attempting to fragment the discussion into multiple directions.

On UN resolutions, you reply:
Nonesense. are you saying that these UN resoultions which are adopted by the MAJORITY OF THE WORLD are not fair ????? GIVE ME A BREAK, you are sounding very pathetic here.

Yes, I am saying that a lot of those UN resolutions were not fair. And - if you think that the majority is always right - then you're sorely mistaken. Oh, and, wasn't it you that argued _against_ democracy and "rule of the mob" as you called it earlier? Isn't that a _pathetic_ flip-flop on your side? (You started the name calling..)

Take for example the UN resolution against the defensive wall. It's a simple wall to defend themselves against terrorism. It's a passive defense structure, to save lives. Yet there are screams of _apartheid_ over it. Give me a break.

I wrote:
"
Onto the tiny little "fact" about Israel illegaly occupying the land of three neighbouring countries. This is not a fact. The fact is that Israel is holding that territory in a state of suspension. It would be fully legal for Israel to claim the territories as their own.
[..]
The problem arises as they do neither of those things. However, the geneva conventions were not written with a situation such as Israels in mind.
"

To which you reply:
Sorry but only retards and mentally disturped people can make your claim.
Where are we living ? in a jungle ? where you can attack your neighbour steal his land and claim it yours ?? OK THEN, Sweden shall invade Norway and keep it swedish land, how about that ?????????? PATHETIC.
[..]
I think you dont even know what is Geneva convention :))))

First off. Please drop the ad hominem attacks.

Secondly, Israel occupied the territories during a defensive war. It may have been a pre-emptive strike, but just on the verge of an enemy attacking. This is legal according to the geneva conventions.

And finally, I've read the geneva convention several times. I'll specify where Israel's problem arises.

The forth geneva convention, relative to the Protection of Civilan Persons
in Time of War, is available here:

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/0/6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5?OpenDocument

Article 47 talks about annexation of occupied territories, and thus indirectly allows it. IN OTHER WORDS, israel is allowed to occupy terrotiries during war, and even allowed to annex them after the war.

The PROBLEM is that Israel has NOT annexed the territories, thus keeping the area in an indefinite suspension. The reason they've not annexed the territories, is that they do not want to grant all palestinians citizenship.

.. which of course is unacceptable.

However, if they were to annex the territories, that would not be theft, and fully legal.

Then I wrote: "The different car plates, well, I don't see that as a huge matter, but maybe you do. :)" , to which you replied:

OH REALLY ?? DOESNT THAT REMIND YOU OF THE NAZIS IN GERMANY MARKING THE JEWS WITH SPECAL SIGNS ?????

Depends on how it implemented. If palestinians granted israeli citizenship has to have different car plates, then I can understand the criticism. If it's only the palestinians which has not been granted israeli citizenship, then I see no problem at all.

I guess you are saying the nazis were doing nothing wrong, right ?????

Bullshit. Stop attacking straw men.

So why you are answering questions NOT directed to you ???????

Again: You are posting to a public forum. Live with it.

Then we have this little exchange, where you cut and paste dishonestly. First, you wrote:
Since you ''claim ? '' you are Norwegian, then you are not occupying our land nor invading our other land in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have NO issue with you nor with NORWAY, so please stay out of it.

To which I replied:
Hah! You are wrong!

Norway was among the first countries - if not THE first - to send special troops to afghanistan.

We were also accompanying the Brits into Iraq, allthough with sanitary/auxilary forces that were there to rebuild the country.

And then you create this wonderfully quoted section:
''Since you ''claim ? '' you are Norwegian, then you are not occupying our land nor invading our other land in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have NO issue with you nor with NORWAY, so please stay out of it.

Hah! You are wrong!''
==================================

Why I am wrong ? is it because I gave you an answer you cant and will never be able to prove it wrong ????

SHOW ME WHERE THESE MUSLIM EXTRMISTS ATTACKED NORWAY ? SHOW ME WHERE AND WHEN THEY THREATEN NORWAY IN ANYWAY ????

You wrote:

''Norway was among the first countries - if not THE first - to send special troops to afghanistan.''
=============================

You dont even know what you are talking about: let me educate you:

Let's take the first part first. I told you that you are wrong, and I told you that we were among the first countries to send special forces to afghanistan. From this you jump into asking me where muslims has attacked norway. Something which I have not claimed. Either you are functionally illeterate, or you're trying to say that I've said something I have not said - ie, you're lying.

Stop doing that.

Then you want to educate me, by quoting an article about Norway sending MORE troops to afghanistan, and you seem to think that was the first contingent we sent. Do you have problems recognizing the meaning of the word "more"?

This is from stavangeravisen - a norwegian paper:
http://www.stavangeravisen.no/art.asp?art=5322

It's in norwegian. It's about norwegian special forces hunting Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan. The article was published Jan.8 2002 . The special forces were already present in afghan mountains when the article was published - and had probably been for some time (but that information is classified).

In short, your so called "education" of me was you not having the faintest clue what you were talking about.

You still don't have any issue with us norwegians? ;)

removed a despot they the americans helped and supported !!! make a lot of sense.

They supported him during the Iran-Iraq war. He was the better choice to support. They tried to remove him as soon as he tried to invade kuwait - at least the americans pushed him out from that country.

You seem to have a problem that the US helps remove the mess they've been part of creating?

removing a despot by killing 30,000 innocent Iraqi muslims ?????????

Well, it's kind of difficult to avoid killing people that are either shooting at you, or are in the the middle between you and the guy that's shooting at you.

I said: "Yes, there has been innocent casualties. There always are - in a war.", to which you replied:
Bullshit, shall I use your same logic to justify 9/11 2000 dead ??? I can claim that these muslim extremists are at war with America !!!!! you see, your argument is 2 way street .

You're not logical. 9/11 was targetting civilians specifically. The americans has targetted military installations, and there has been civilian casualties because they've been to close to the targets, or because they've been in the way of the target, or because they've appeared threatening.

A civilian structure that is deliberately attacked on the other hand - is a totally different matter.

If you cannot see the different between a military operation and terrorism, then you're truly lost.

I wrote: "We participated in both the liberation of Afghanistan and in the liberation of Iraq. We participated with special forces in Afghanistan. We participated with - let us call them "rebuilders" in Iraq." to which you replied:
You did NOT kill muslims, so you will not be killed.

You're quite correct that I did not kill muslims. Norwegian special troops in Afghanistan on the other hand certainly saw combat against the Taliban.

Again, this is a public forum, where everyone may answer everyone. If you have trouble understanding how a public forum works, then you've just learned it.

My answer to your talmud-citations was to tell you that I could quote from the Hadith - which is similiarly important to the muslims as the Talmud is to the jews.

| 2004-08-21 21:23 | Link

Salahudin,

I really abhor your passion.

It is an anecdotal proof of my contention that religion is a survival trait that bonds the individual to the group, and which reinforces group differences and animosities designed to preserve the species. Religion is the semantic expression of genetic instinct, and as such, is entirely dismissive of reason or sense.

The big problem with monotheisms, of which Islam is the most extreme and totalitarian, is that they are so fulfilling to the individual who seeks group membership and protection.

Religion, the group survival instinct, can be good and bad. For many people religion is a background environment that provides a context for normal behavior. For others it is a consuming purpose and obsession.

As the utility of religions fade in the face of human progress and increased average wealth their satisfactions become less important and their survival purposes become less compelling. In fact those survival purposes are downright dangerous in an era of WMD

Now that the socialist religions, Naziism and Communism, have collapsed of their own excess Islam becomes the gravest menace. It was originated and developed to overcome tribal and clan rivalries and to replace them with the supreme community, the Allah bedazzled umma. Islam's greatest danger lies in its power to attract wayward souls and to inspire them to jihad in the name of Islamic "peace."

It should be banned for the good of humanity.

Carolyn,earth | 2004-08-21 21:36 | Link

Tabari IX:131- "My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two branches and got me down. My nurse took over and wiped my face with some water and started leading me. When I was at the door she stopped so I could catch my breath. I was brought in while Muhammed was sitting on a bed in our house. My mother made me sit on his lap. The other men and women got up and left. The Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was NINE years old."

Mashiki , Canada | 2004-08-21 21:50 | Link

Simply because I have problems following non by-argument written replies I'm going to try to answer this. Above written by Salahudin; forgive the lack of quoting. I've tried several of the usual BB/UBC and standard quote means but meh.

Who shows the hate Salahudin? You have made an assumption based on one thing, that I wrote G-d in one way. But why? Two reasons, first Orthodox, Reform, pious and many other Jews write it this as a way to avoid the risk of erasing or defacing the Name and bringing a sin upon themselves. The second, I'll let you ponder this. I either spend much time with Jews, I have a Jewish heritage, or I use it as sign of respect as I study in the works.

The manual itself, can be ordered directly from the Saudi Military Supply store. Yes non-citizens(expcet Jews, can order directly from them). No, I can't read arabic; I know a few people who can. The beauty of living near one of the worlds 'largest' multicultural cities in the world. Memri translations are accurate, that comes from those who can read Arabic and are horrified at what they read.

So the sources for these schools have to be neutral? But you are willing to use the Guardian and BBC, indymedia and others as 'unbiased and neutral' sources. Hypocrite, unabashed hypocrite.

ALEXANDRIA, Va. -- A northern Virginia school that caters to children of Saudi diplomats is teaching first-graders that Judaism and Christianity are false religions, according to a Muslim group concerned that such teachings breed hate and intolerance.

The Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism is calling on the Islamic Saudi Academy to remove the textbook used to teach first-graders. The teachers' edition of the textbook outlines several points of emphasis, including the statement "All religions other than Islam are false religions."

I'll let you look up the rest on your own. I'm a believer that unless you find information on your own, you'll never learn. I'll show, I'll point, I'll inform. But I will not hand you anything on a platter.

Sure, I call it the same in each instance. Religious indoctrination, or just indoctrination.

The guardian is not an unbiased source. A reason exists why it's called al-Guardian. Coddling terror and terrorists does not endeer my opinions of it.

When the Jews get out of 'your' land? Must I remind you of 6 days? The Jews kicked every army sent against it. It kicked the Egyptians back across the Sinai and to the Nile...and it was *given* back as a sign of good faith in a manner of peace. Who was shelling who from the Golan? It wasn't Israel...they didn't have the 2000+ft advantage to see into the homes and gardens. The Jews are where they came from, you can try revising and destroying all the history you want...just like at temple mount...but it doesn't change the truth. Muslims are guilty of many things, the destruction of history and it's historical artifacts among that as well.

I doubt I can refute what I cannot read with my own eyes, do not have a copy of the Talmud handy, the Torah yes. Would you refute the Koran, Hadiths, the Sunna and the Sira? If you did not have a copy of each? Or would you say nothing, plead ignorance or say how dare you deface the holy scriptures?

So...you are looking to get into a baiting match? The vast majority have no hate, the others are taken out of context, are propaganda pieces, or self-hating Jews. But I really do like that first one, but you left out the key point. The 'Palestinians' a non-existant group. The first point is factual, when was the last time a Jew sent their child strapped with a home-made claymore mine to their body to blow up a bus full of women and children. Or dressed up as a Orthodox Rabbi, and blew up a group of worshippers in a bus coming back from the western wall? The Palestinians are a non-existant group, they are Jordanian. In 1948 when Jordan attacked Israel it annexed Judea and Samaria and granted citizenship to all its population, both residents and refugees including Gaza. In 1987 in response to the "intifada", Jordan withdrew it's claims to the bank. And revoked all citizenships and rights. That doesn't make them any less then Jordians tho.

I'd suggest reading the Moldet peace plan. You should have any problems with that. It's a 'two' state solution. Right back to the 'old' days.

So Rune Kristian Viken from Oslo...we are apparently the same person huh? *chuckle* Long lost unknown cousins reunited at last.

Mashiki , Canada | 2004-08-21 22:09 | Link

I figured I'd toss in after that last post, and I hope that Bjørn will forgive this. I'm not a Jew, I was not rasied Jewish. I do have Jewish friends, but only in the last few years. My family was decimated by the Nazi's in the Shoah, I have no knowing of my past except what I've learned and what little I was told. In Salahudin's eyes I figure that makes me a Jew tho. Why? Because the blood of German-Jews flows in me.

jinnderella | 2004-08-21 22:16 | Link

Bjorn: "And that is the real problem here, this willingness to make apologies for extremists, this refusal to focus for long on anything but the threat of Islam."
I tend to see things in the basis of organic systems. My question is, why would you NOT expect to see an equally extreme reaction to outrage among individual organisms? I think you speak with a forked tongue when you expect Charles to condemn extremist views in his comments section, to save the sensabilities of moderate muslims who do not condemn their extremists. Charles serves it raw, and rage, hatred, horror, and shout-at-the-devil are actually healthy reactions, IMHO. The function of LGF is only to SHOW. Charles is the best at doing this.
Next, isn't it basically silly to speak of banning Islam? For one thing, Islam is not just a religion-- it is a world view encompassing politics, law, art, music, reproduction, AND religion as a subset. This also renders any comparisons between whatever religion anyone uses and the System of Islam null and void. I see no value in comparisons. I am more interested in differences.

Carolyn, earth | 2004-08-21 22:38 | Link

More...

Narrated 'Aisha- " I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Prophet used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves. But the Prophet would call to them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but was allowed for 'Aisha at the time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty)
Fateh-al- Bari page 143, volume 13

Salahudin | 2004-08-21 22:48 | Link

RE: Susan

''
Question for Salahuddin and all Islam-apologists: If it is all right for Salahuddin and millions of other Muslims to be anti-American, why is it wrong for Americans to be anti-Islam? ''
==================================

did you ask yourself first why muslims and NON MUSLIMS ALIKE are anti american ???????

You wrote:

''PS -- I am glad that you, Salahuddin have joined the debate. Now the apologists can get a whiff of what it is like to be exposed to the illogic, irrational "arguments" they are likely to encounter from members of the Religion of Peace. And believe me, he is quite ordinary -- a moderate, in fact. ''
==================================

It is my pleasure, let our readers see both sides of the argument and let them judge, at least, I am not ranting, I am quoting from YOUR own sources, the fact that not a single American was able to refute what I posted indicate I am making good impact.

Keep hanging with us to hear the 'OTHER' side of the story.

Salahudin | 2004-08-21 22:54 | Link

Re: Carolyn,earth

''
Tabari IX:131- ''
========================

What's that ? what you are quoting is NOT the Quran, are you aware of that ???

This is the Quran my dear lady:

http://www.ummah.net/what-is-islam/quran/neindex.htm

I hope you can have the time to read through it and see if what you 'copied and pasted' is from the quran or not ?

Salahudin | 2004-08-21 22:57 | Link

Re: Carolyn,

''
Narrated 'Aisha- "
================================

Again, what you are quoting is NOT the Quran, will you please learn at least the ABC about Islam ????

Rune Kristian Viken, Oslo | 2004-08-21 22:57 | Link

Mashiki

I had a suspicion you were not jewish, my "long lost cousin", but had jewish influence after Salahudin pointed out the G-d thingie - I had never heard about that convention before.

I love your writing style. If you by any chance ever visit Norway, please feel free to call. I'm the only one in Norway with my name, so I should be easy enough to find. Just consult any phone directory. I'm available for a beer as long as I'm nearby. :)

Salahudin:

I find it interesting that your screed against Mashiki turned out to be so totally wrong. You condemned him as a jew, but it turned out he only tried to be respectful to his heritage (correct, Mashkiki?) . Your hatred has truly shown.

Rune Kristian Viken, Oslo | 2004-08-21 23:03 | Link

Salahudin:

I'm afraid you've ranted and raved. You've posted screeds without logic throughout this thread.

Although you're correct in one thing. I'm the only one that has refuted what you've written - and I'm not american. However, I think I've managed to refute your ravings pretty well - and I think our american friends can read and understand that pretty well.

Furthermore, you've been well refuted by Mashiki, the person you - without reason nor logic - claimed was a jew.

I'm still waiting for your next reply.

Salahudin | 2004-08-21 23:08 | Link

Re: Mashiki , Canada

''The Palestinians are a non-existant group, they are Jordanian. ''
=================================

This racist nazi statement said it all, you are zionist nazi jew, how DARE you erase the existence of a whole nation ???

You are typical coward jew, too scared even to admit you are a jew.

PALESTINE WILL BE LIBERATED, PALESTINEANS WILL GET THEIR FREEDOM IN PALESTINE, IN THEIR LAND, WETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT.

Here is some of what the nazi jews did against the Palestineans:

http://www.koshertaxscam.com/atroc

Salahudin | 2004-08-21 23:19 | Link

Re: Rune Kristian Viken, Oslo

''
I'm afraid you've ranted and raved. You've posted screeds without logic throughout this thread.''
===========================

Said the one who described the UN resolutions as unfair and irrelevant !! LOOOOOOOOOOOL

You wrote:

''Although you're correct in one thing. I'm the only one that has refuted what you've written - and I'm not american.''
==============================

In your dreams :)))))

You wrote:

'' Furthermore, you've been well refuted by Mashiki, the person you - without reason nor logic - claimed was a jew.''
===================================

WISHFUL THINKING. :))))

This coward jew mashiki even could not refute the hate and the lies spitted by his fellow jews, he REFUSED to refute the QUOTES from his TALMUD !!! and you calim he refuted me !! LOOOOOOOOL

You wrote:

''I'm still waiting for your next reply.''
==========================

I rest my case, I looked at your last reply and I could not find anything interesting or of any value to waste my time on, all you have is lies, illogical bullshit about the UN and the occupied arab land and more pathetic zionist jewish recycled myths.

I shall wait for more ''intelligent'' debater, meanwhile since you accept to be this jew lawyer, you can spend your time refuting the quotes I gave from the jewish holy book, The Talmud...can you do that? :)))))))) I AM SURE YOU CANT.

Here are the quotes again ( just to make sure you get them :)

Jews are Divine:

Sanhedrin 58b. If a heathen (Gentile) hits a Jew, the Gentile must be killed. Hitting a Jew is the same as hitting God.

It's O.K. to Cheat Non-Jews:

Sanhedrin 57a. A Jew need not pay a Gentile ("Cuthean") the wages owed him for work.

Jews Have Superior Legal Status:

Baba Kamma 37b. "If an ox of an Israelite gores an ox of a Canaanite there is no liability; but if an ox of a Canaanite gores an ox of an Israelite ... the payment is to be in full."

Jews May Steal from Non-Jews:

Baba Mezia 24a. If a Jew finds an object lost by a Gentile ("heathen") it does not have to be returned. (Affirmed also in Baba Kamma 113b).

Sanhedrin 76a. God will not spare a Jew who "marries his daughter to an old man or takes a wife for his infant son or returns a lost article to a Cuthean ... "

Jews May Rob and Kill Non-Jews:

Sanhedrin 57a. When a Jew murders a Gentile ("Cuthean"), there will be no death penalty. What a Jew steals from a Gentile he may keep.

Baba Kamma 37b. Gentiles are outside the protection of the law and God has "exposed their money to Israel."

Jews May Lie to Non-Jews:

Baba Kamma 113a. Jews may use lies ("subterfuges") to circumvent a Gentile.

Non-Jewish Children Sub-Human:

Yebamoth 98a. All Gentile children are animals.

Abodah Zarah 36b. Gentile girls are in a state of niddah (filth) from birth.

Abodah Zarah 22a-22b. Gentiles prefer sex with cows.

Mashiki , Canada | 2004-08-21 23:52 | Link

Rune Kristian Viken,

Quite right on that, homage and respect to ones heritage. I'll take you up on your offer of a beer well. But I'll send you an e-mail here first, I have a horrible problem with remembering names, but I wouldn't mind keeping in touch. I thank you for the compliment of my writing style as well. Good writing for me, comes far and few between.

To the business at hand tho.

* a small fix to my eariler post, "and to the Nile", that is wrong...and is my fault.

Salahudin,
I was kind of hoping for a good discourse, but I see I'm not going to get it. Such is life sometimes. But I have to ask, do you have to spew such...hate? I will not drop to your level, I will not insult you, I will not call you names. I will not call you nazi either. I feel pity for you, such hate. Their nation is was Trans-Jordan, now called Jordan. Their history was based on their leaving in '48 on the idea that the Arabs would be 'victorious' and they would have all the land. They lost the bet, too much history to even type. Even if the Arab world refuses this history...Western, Asian and European scholars do recognize it. Atleast the non-revisionist ones do, how I loathe a revisionist.

Would you like me to start showing you the pictures from the Muslim Arab pogoms? How about I start demanding reparations from all the Arab countries for stolen Jewish land in Arab countries. I think that's fair, several people have claim to large patches of oil ladden fields and gas fields in Saudi Arabia and Jordan Pre-Progom I think they'd like compensation for...plus interest.

A book for you to read. From Time Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict over Palestine It started as a grant project from an Arab group, to prove the Arab population in "historic Palestine", the problem with in the end she proved it was the Arabs displaced the Jews. It proved that Jewish development was the reason they flocked to the area. It also lists Muslim Arab pogoms against the Jews.

I think that's everything right now.

Mashiki , Canada | 2004-08-22 00:05 | Link

Hmm I guess not.

Salahudin,
This coward jew mashiki even could not refute the hate and the lies spitted by his fellow jews, he REFUSED to refute the QUOTES from his TALMUD !!! and you calim he refuted me !! LOOOOOOOOL

What did I say to you? Did you even read it, or were you so angry that you ignored the majority of my post.

What of my words the man said? I do not know he replied. For I was not home when he wrote it, so I could not give judgement. Thus the stranger spoke: I care not, I can quote him. I demand judgement! The man replied: I cannot, for I have not seen the words in my own hand to render it.

Paul M. | 2004-08-22 01:00 | Link

What a shame to see comment on the original, thoughtful blog drowned in Salahuddin’s torrent of venom and the long, detailed and futile replies to him. I won’t respond to Salahuddin’s lies, distortions and selective truths: It’s pointless—he’s deaf to anything I might say. To this I suppose he will reply that it proves I have no answers.

I do want to say explicitly what no one else has: Salahuddin—that nickname is far too noble for him—is an anti-Semite. Not for his odious opinions about Israel or Zionism, but for his attitude to Jews. He blames Jews for “most of the hate and incitement against Islam and Muslims,” even though (apart from me) there are no confirmed Jews in this thread. MEMRI is not merely an “islamophobic lying machine,” it is a “jewish islamophobic lying machine.” (Actually, its translations and reports are very widely accepted as accurate and truthful.) He latches on to an identification of Mashiki as a Jew, and thereafter loses interest in responding to Mashiki as Mashiki. Mashiki is not “hateful,” he is a “hateful jew.” Salahuddin repeats the usual Internet distortions of the Talmud, then assumes that Mashiki follows the Talmud. Next, he makes Jews responsible for a selection of dubious quotations attributed to Israeli leaders. In a little while, he ceases to write of Mashiki as himself, but only as an example of the breed: “the jew (Mashiki),” and presently as a “typical coward jew.”

I expect that Salahuddin will reply that he is (1) not anti-Semitic, but only anti-Zionist and that (2) he couldn’t possibly be anti-Semitic anyway, as the Arabs are Semites too. Like the rest of his diatribes, this is old stuff.

Salahuddin, feel free to call me “the jew (Paul M.),” although Jew is capitalized, like Arab and Muslim. I won’t respond.

Bjorn, as far as I’m concerned, the best thing you could do to salvage this thread is to delete all Salahuddin’s posts, along with all the replies to him (including this one).

Paul M., USA | 2004-08-22 01:07 | Link

Sorry—forgot to read the instructions. My location is the US.

Paul M., USA | 2004-08-22 01:09 | Link

Sorry—forgot to read the instructions. My location is the US.

James PA.,USA | 2004-08-22 02:23 | Link

I don't agree that excising Salahudin is a good idea, Paul.

True, he has frayed the thread and he becomes unreadable beyond each first rant, but he does serve a purpose. Fanaticism is entertaining.

Susan | 2004-08-22 05:22 | Link

Sal,

You didn't really answer my question. What's wrong with returning like for like? You seem to have no problems spewing your hatred of varous people you don't like, then have the nerve to show up here and take offense at people voicing disapproval of Islam.

If you hate so much, you should expect to get it back. Only fair.

Please don't delete his posts. Far too many people who read this blog really don't understand the level of irrationality prevalent amongst Muslims these day. He's a good wake-up call.

Mashiki , Canada | 2004-08-22 06:18 | Link

Paul M.,

I will disagree with your point that these posts should be deleted. Bjørn says, disagreement is strongly encouraged, no views will be censored.

The point I shall make is this, what you have seen is the face of what many do experience in the world. Some will call what I've posted bait, it was not...I write as I know and how I am. We are all shaped by our world experiences, by what we are taught and by the faces presented to us in the schools, by our religious teachers, by the teachers in our classrooms as well. The imprints left on us by our parents, and elders.

Not all are humble, not all are kind, not all tell the truth. Some present and speak horrible lies to perpetuate hate. So we move onto the question again.

The words that have been spoken by Salahudin that I was a Jew, were based on one thing. That I said G-d, no other. I have nothing to gain by lies, nothing to gain by untruths or hateful words. Now the individual is either Muslim or a Muslim-Appologist I care not a wit in either way.

Strangeness unto itself it comes to this, is it not odd that they attack based on a single word with such, blinding hate is set forth on someone who is not even Jewish. Are they all like that, are only some? I will say not all, but there are some. Past experiences in my home country have put much distrust into Muslims for good reasons, as were shown in this thread. If I can walk the streets of Toronto and get reactions with a group of Jewish friends from Muslims...how far and how deeply do such things go.

What must be done to counter it. Why are things not being countered already? Why do they not speak up against it themselves. Why do the ME governments pay to build more madrassahs around the world which spread this type of hate? The question was asked why the Anti-Islamic views, the question of banning Islam? We've seen examples of this extreamism here, either by a Muslim or by a Muslim apologist.

I don't know if there is a simple answer, it can't be banned. It is both a social and religious grouping. It must be reformed, but it must come from the heart of that power now. The Middle East.

Why the anti-Islamic feelings? That is far easier...the fear of blinding hate and the outcome. You, others and I will laugh at the things that come out of the media...Jews using blood in matzah for example, that doesn't stop things on a larger scale. When you see the Egyptians papers saying horrible things about the Jews and Americans, you worry. When you see it from the Jordanians you question. When you see it from the Saudi's you become alarmed. When you see it from the 'palestinians' including blood libel from them and the above, you begin to fear it. Then the Iranians, the Lebanese, the Syrians, the Sudanese, and on it goes. That is when you get angry.

All of these governments have one thing in common, they are all Muslim. They all hate Israel, all hate Jews, there is a very strong anti-American sentiment as well. Something is fundamentaly wrong with this picture, it is bred by the government and the 'religious' scholars.

It is not what we don't understand, it is what we understand and fear with the hate.

Jorma | 2004-08-22 09:39 | Link

Well done Salahudin, I was not aware of all the stuff you quoted. Thank you for showing us the other side of the story.

keep the good work.

Salahudin | 2004-08-22 10:04 | Link

Re: Paul M.

''What a shame to see comment on the original, thoughtful blog drowned in Salahuddin’s torrent of venom and the long, detailed and futile replies to him. I won’t respond to Salahuddin’s lies, distortions and selective truths: It’s pointless—he’s deaf to anything I might say. To this I suppose he will reply that it proves I have no answers. ''
==============================

Indeed, the fact that NO ONE dared to answer the quotes from the ugly talmud nor the quotes from famous jewish leaders which is filled with hate and call for genocide against arabs and muslims vendicate my position, let our readers judge :)

You wrote:

How can you call someone anti semite when I am SEMITIC my self ?? it is oxymoron ( nothing new for the nazi zionist jews )

You wrote:

''even though (apart from me) there are no confirmed Jews in this thread. ''
====================================

Oh yes, there are but they are too cowards to reveal their true identity, perhaps they are too ashemd to be known as zionist jews !!

You wrote:

''MEMRI is not merely an “islamophobic lying machine,” it is a “jewish islamophobic lying machine.” (Actually, its translations and reports are very widely accepted as accurate and truthful.)''
=============================

Bullshit, I already proved that MEMRI is jewish- owned lying propaganda machine sprung up for the SOLE PURPOSE of defaming arabs and Muslims ( and yet some jews complain why muslims resent them !! ) here is the article again from NON MUSLIM source, from ''The Guardian'' , the Most famous British newspaper with 9 million reader every month:

Selective Memri
Brian Whitaker investigates whether the 'independent' media institute that translates the Arabic newspapers is quite what it seems
Monday August 12 2002
The Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,773258,00.html

ENJOY :)

You wrote:

'' He latches on to an identification of Mashiki as a Jew, and thereafter loses interest in responding to Mashiki as Mashiki. Mashiki is not “hateful,” he is a “hateful jew.”''
=================================

Indeed, this hateful jew was inciting hate against Islam and Muslims, this hateful jew wrote:

''I have a feeling that it( ISLAM ) will either reform, or we'll end up wiping out massive sections of the population in a world war.''

Now if this is not inciting hate and resentment against ISLAM, I dont know what it is ?

Imagine if muslim wrote the same setence but replaced ISLAM with Judaism, so the sentence will be:

''I have a feeling that it( JUDAISM ) will either reform, or we'll end up wiping out massive sections of the population in a world war.''

I am sure many HYPOCRITES here will be shouting like raped apes ANTI SEMITISM, right ??????

Then, this hateful jews goes on to say:

'' It's not a pleasent thought, then again neither are the things that are passed at the madrassahs that the Saudi's or Egyptians fund all over the world.''

As if this hateful jew KNOW for sure what the muslim schools in Saudi Arabia or Egypt are teaching ??? why he does not tell us what the JEWISH SETTLERS school in occupied Palestine are teaching about Arabs, Muslims and Palestine ??

Then this hateful jew goes on to write:

''Ask yourself, how many in Europe teach that all other relgions but Islam are false. Then ask how many of these schools teach that these 'false' worshipper's must be converted or die. ''
==============================

This hateful jew is inciting hate by giving FALSE information, Islam and muslim schools DONT teach that false worshippers must covert or die, this is OUTRIGHT JEWISH LIE. this jew who is lying in order to defame Islam and Muslims is DIRECTLY inciting people and readers here to hate muslims.

Then he wrote:

''Recently there were several in the US that were teaching this. People were quite angry at this, how many in Europe? How many around the world?''

He is asking not only Europe but the WHOLE WORLD to be angry from Muslims and perhaps initiate HOLOCAUST against them, right Mr hateful jew ???

You wrote:

'' Salahuddin repeats the usual Internet distortions of the Talmud, then assumes that Mashiki follows the Talmud. ''
===================================

The fact that you did not dare neither you nor the other jew from Canada to refute it make it true without a shred of doubt.

You wrote:

''Next, he makes Jews responsible for a selection of dubious quotations attributed to Israeli leaders. ''
==================================

When jew or christian commits a crime, he/she is ONLY responsible but when Muslim committs a crime, it is ISLAM as a whole which is responsible !!!! DISGUSTING HYPOCRISY.

It bothers you so much seeing muslim hitting back at your lies and INCITMENT, the quotes from these hateful jewish leaders and rabbais against arabs and muslims are disgusting, I am wondering what the reaction will be if MUSLIMS said such SICK statements ????

You wrote:

''In a little while, he ceases to write of Mashiki as himself, but only as an example of the breed: “the jew (Mashiki),” and presently as a “typical coward jew.”''
==================================

If you are not brave enough to admit you are jew, why you post incitment and hate against Islam and Muslims ???

You wrote:

''I expect that Salahuddin will reply that he is (1) not anti-Semitic, but only anti-Zionist ''
================================

ANTI SEMITISM USED TO MEAN ANYONE WHO HATE THE JEWS, NOW IT MEANS ANYONE WHO THE JEWS HATE.

How can I be anti semitic when I am semitic myself ???

You wrote:

''and that (2) he couldn’t possibly be anti-Semitic anyway, as the Arabs are Semites too. Like the rest of his diatribes, this is old stuff.''
============================

And since you cant refute the fact that ARABS are semitic as well, your accusation against me being anti semitic are BASELESS.

You wrote:

''Salahuddin, feel free to call me “the jew (Paul M.),” although Jew is capitalized, like Arab and Muslim. I won’t respond.''
==============================

I wont call you the JEW, because you admit you are jew, you are at least brave enough to say who you are, and because of that, I will call you PAUL only.

You wrote:

''Bjorn, as far as I’m concerned, the best thing you could do to salvage this thread is to delete all Salahuddin’s posts, along with all the replies to him (including this one).''
================================

TRUTH HURTS SPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES FROM MUSLIMS.

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

Salahudin | 2004-08-22 10:17 | Link

Re: Susan

Sal,

''You didn't really answer my question. What's wrong with returning like for like? You seem to have no problems spewing your hatred of varous people you don't like, then have the nerve to show up here and take offense at people voicing disapproval of Islam. ''
==================================

So it bother you so much seeing muslim here in this forum defending his faith against your lies, distortions and hate, right ??

I am here to let people read our side of the story, the muslim side of the story, the fact that I am the ONLY Muslim here battleing hords of Islamophobes, liars and bigots mean a lot for me, it is E-JIHD you know :))))

As to you question, it is the US who started the hate not the other way around, beside your question is flawed, our resentment is against a COUNTRY ( the US ) While your hate is against great religion ( Islam ), so you see, your point is invalid

You wrote:

''If you hate so much, you should expect to get it back. Only fair. ''
================================

Indeed, and this apply on you as well, you see, it is 2 WAY ROAD.

You wrote:

''Please don't delete his posts. Far too many people who read this blog really don't understand the level of irrationality prevalent amongst Muslims these day. He's a good wake-up call. ''
=================================

Thank you, I appreciate your concern so much but I am here to defend my faith against LIES and BIGOTRY.

Dont worry, I wont leave until I am banned ( for just stating my opinion ), I am here to entertain your lies :))))))

Have a very nice day.

Rune Kristian Viken, Oslo | 2004-08-22 11:23 | Link

Salahudin:

Here we go again. One observation before I start this time though. You don't make a good impression when you're attacking ad hominem instead of attacking by logical arguments. You continously go for the name-calling strategy, which just isn't going to impress anyone.

But, onto your arguments:

Your quotes from the Talmud is irrelevant to the discussion, and you're attempting to fragment the discussion into a zillion threads by asking people to disprove them.

Talmud contains lots of garbage. I've not checked, but I'll take that your Talmud quotations actually are true on face value. Forging them would be just stupid. However, I'm pretty damn sure that a lot of it is taken out of context.

If we were to start quoting from the Hadiths, that would be of similiar relevance. The Hadiths has aproximately the same status to muslims, as the Talmud has to the jews. There are lots upon lots of garbage in both.

I could also quote som bloody ridiculous parts from the Qu'ran too, like 8:12 and others.

In short, you bringing in the Talmud in the first place has no releance - unless you think that the jews actually should follow a strict interpretation of the Talmud, and you think that muslims should follow a strict interpretation of the Hadiths.

Anyways, you're keen to point out what others hasn't answered in your posts. It's time for you to admit that you either lied about checking the amnesty links, or explain your first reply about that. It's also time for you to admit that you were wrong about norwegian participation in Afghanistan.

How can you call someone anti semite when I am SEMITIC my self ?? it is oxymoron ( nothing new for the nazi zionist jews )

You seem to be filled with a lot of hatred for jews. Remember what I called that kind of speech earlier on? I called it "religious intolerance and hatred" when directed at muslims. I think the same thing about it when directed at jews.

You replied to the following quote: even though (apart from me) there are no confirmed Jews in this thread. by saying:

Oh yes, there are but they are too cowards to reveal their true identity, perhaps they are too ashemd to be known as zionist jews !!

You have no way of knowing that. The entire claim on your part is nothing but ludicrous. You cannot claim something without proof, and then work on it as it was an obvious truth.

You are jumping to conclusion, or you are dishonest. Both are negative traits. Which one is it?

First off, you've not proved anything. You've referred people to a single article on the topic. The article doesn't even find any lies by memri. It argues that it may be a propaganda machine, but it does not find lies (it finds one claim that surely must have been a misunderstanding).

Furthermore, the guardian has not found proof that their sole purpose is to defame anyone. They're implying that it may bit so - but that is not proof.

It's the same kind of proof as if I should scream "Islam and evil! And I've got proof! Go see the proof at little green footballs!". The argument is of course totally ridiculous and invalid. So is your argument in this case.

In reply to: He latches on to an identification of Mashiki as a Jew, and thereafter loses interest in responding to Mashiki as Mashiki. Mashiki is not “hateful,” he is a “hateful jew.” you wrote:

Indeed, this hateful jew was inciting hate against Islam and Muslims, this hateful jew wrote:

Only one problem - he is not a jew, even though you claim him to be one. The problem here is that you are CLAIMING that he is a jew, without a shred of proof - and even though he himself is claiming not to be a jew.

First off - there is nothing wrong with being a jew - but it sticks deeper in this case, you are labeling him a 'hateful jew' where you imply that he is both hateful, and a jew - and that boths traits are negative.

Secondly, you are clearly a liar in this case - as he himself has told that he is not a jew. You are totally ignoring that little factoid.

Then, in reply to: I have a feeling that it( ISLAM ) will either reform, or we'll end up wiping out massive sections of the population in a world war. you wrote:

Now if this is not inciting hate and resentment against ISLAM, I dont know what it is ?

It is not. If you truly represent mainstream Islam and not some extremist sect, I'm afraid I'll have to agree with Mashiki in his claim. You seem to be filled with hatred - and if that is true for the rest of the muslim population -- there either need to be a major reform on your part, or you'll probably end up attacking the rest of the world - getting decimated in the process.

I am sure many HYPOCRITES here will be shouting like raped apes ANTI SEMITISM, right ??????

Your colourful speech doesn't impress anyone. There is nobody screaming like "raped apes" in this thread.

Then, this hateful jews goes on to say:

Oh, another personal attack against him. We're _so_ impressed.

On nobody bothering to refute your Talmud claims:
The fact that you did not dare neither you nor the other jew from Canada to refute it make it true without a shred of doubt.

I'm sorry, but where is the logic in that? It _becomes_ true because nobody bothers to refute it? Ridiculous.

Well, as you're spewing quite a lot of hatred in this thread, you can see how we react to them. We don't start screaming blood murder. We argue against you and show you your fallacies.

TRUTH HURTS SPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES FROM MUSLIMS.

The problem, right now, is that you're not saying much truth, but spewing rabid remarks at people. You've resorted to name calling. You're throwing mud. You're not arguing against our arguments, but are in a so complete 'attack mode' that it's not even interesting to discuss with you at the moment.

The reason I'm replying to you is that I hope to point out how totally foolish you look - to you. Since you're "on the other side" - it would be nice to have good arguments with you - without you spewing hatred, irrelevancies, trying to fragment the discussion, and without you shotgunning the discussion with a HUGE amount of links. None of those tactics will get you anywere.

Bjørn Stærk | 2004-08-22 11:27 | Link

Paul M: "Bjorn, as far as I’m concerned, the best thing you could do to salvage this thread is to delete all Salahuddin’s posts, along with all the replies to him (including this one)."

You can read the rules for commenting at the bottom of the page. In short, as long as you stay away from personal attacks, you can express just about any view in this blog. That includes Salahudin. I don't believe in censorship.

Step back a moment and look at the sheer variety of views being expressed in this thread alone. Everything from LGF-style anti-Islamicism to Salahudin, with a lot of steps inbetween. I think that's beautiful. Sure, Salahudin could be more concise and clear, but I don't have a problem with seeing his views here at all. I wish I had more readers with pro-Islamic views, and many other views. It's all part of the battlefield of ideas.

Rune Kristian Viken, Oslo | 2004-08-22 11:39 | Link

Salahudin:

In reply to me saying: I'm afraid you've ranted and raved. You've posted screeds without logic throughout this thread. you replied:
Said the one who described the UN resolutions as unfair and irrelevant !! LOOOOOOOOOOOL

The UN resolutions are political matters. The UN is not arbiters of the ultimat
e truth, or the ultimate good. They are by no means formed by logic.

This coward jew mashiki even could not refute the hate and the lies spitted by his fellow jews, he REFUSED to refute the QUOTES from his TALMUD !!! and you calim he refuted me !! LOOOOOOOOL

First off, he is not jewish. Stop lying!

And yes, we all refuse to partake in an idiotic quote-battle. There is absolute
ly no need to start quoting the Bible, the Talmud, the Qu'ran, the Hadiths, and
so forth. You can find huge amount of hatred in all those so called "holy" book
s. If the world was ruled what actually is written in those stinking piles of crap, then there would be constant world war.

Christianity has modernized, and the vast majority has long thrown away the extr
emist parts of the bible.

When will the vast majority of muslims do the same with the Qu'ran?

You are calling me a liar? I demand that you quote where I have lied.

I also demand that you show where I'm not using regular logic (There may be a glitch, and I would certainly like to have it pointed out).

Actually I have repeatedly said that I _won't_. There is no use in it, as I cou
ld find a similiar large chunk of shit in the Qu'ran and the Hadiths. If you re
ally think that is a valid way of arguing, think again.

Furthermore, I'm not a lawyer for anyone.

Your insults about my intelligence brought a chuckle to my lips.

Salahudin | 2004-08-22 11:43 | Link

Re: Bjørn Stærk

''
You can read the rules for commenting at the bottom of the page. In short, as long as you stay away from personal attacks, you can express just about any view in this blog. That includes Salahudin. I don't believe in censorship.

Step back a moment and look at the sheer variety of views being expressed in this thread alone. Everything from LGF-style anti-Islamicism to Salahudin, with a lot of steps inbetween. I think that's beautiful. Sure, Salahudin could be more concise and clear, but I don't have a problem with seeing his views here at all. I wish I had more readers with pro-Islamic views, and many other views. It's all part of the battlefield of ideas. ''

====================================

Spot on Bjørn, it is ok for some to attack, defame, spread lies and insult Islam but it is not ok even for a muslim to be here in the first place !

I salute your integrity Bjørn, I admire your insistance on my right to express my views without censorship.

The same people who want to see me banned tried to ban another pro-muslim TV Channel in France but they were defeated:

http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2004-08/21/article10.shtml

This debate is about my faith, my religion and my brothers and sisters ( The Muslims all over the world ), this debate is already unbalanced because I am the only Muslim here in your blog facing hords of Islamophobes, zionist jews, evangelical christians, neo cons and bigots but still this only muslim must be banned so that the lies and the distortions they spread against Islam will go unchecked and without refutations !!!

Thank you again Bjørn for giving me the chance and the paltform to defend my faith and to let others know the 'other' side of the story.

A Swedish Observer | 2004-08-22 15:46 | Link

Salahudin,

Thanks for exposing yourself and your opinions.

This has been VERY interesting journey in to the mind of a 21th century islamist.

I'll save it for the future.

But, remember one thing: today millions and millions of Muslims thrive in the midst of the western world.

Our society is for the moment an open, democratic and tolerant society. You are free to build your mosques in Stockholm, Paris, London and New York. You are free to propagate your own views - although of a a very aggressive, undemocratic and hostile kind. You are free to use our technology (for example your own computer) and our superior western knowledge (which has absolutely nothing to do with your religion or god). We accommodate you in nearly every single case.

Where do you find the same generosity and tolerance among your kind of people? In Saudi Arabia? In Pakistan? In your beloved Palestine?

Perhaps one day we westerners will urge you - the Moslem "imperialist" and "settler" - to stop the "occupation" our "holy land" (i.e. Europe - and perhaps also former Christian sites in Asia Minor, the Middle East and North Africa).

It seems more and more plausible when I read your hateful rant.

Salahudin | 2004-08-22 16:10 | Link

Re: A Swedish Observer

''
Salahudin,

Thanks for exposing yourself and your opinions.

It seems more and more plausible when I read your hateful rant.''
==================================

Blah blah blah, another nazi zionist jew appointing himself a spoksman on behalf of Europe !!! so amusing :)

Without our knowledge, Europe would have been still in the dark ages.

ISLAMIC WORLD AND THE WESTERN RENAISSANCE

http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/ghazi1.html

But Hey buddy, millions of muslims are now EUROPEANS, they were born in EUROPE, many of them are converts to Islam, they have the same rights as you do, so what are barking about ?( Building mosques and allowing us to express our views..etc ? ) it is OUR land and it is OUR countries buddy, we were born here, these are our rights , you are not doing us any favour )

there are about 40 million muslims in Europe and once Turkey join the EU they will be around 110 million Muslim in Europe alone , so you better BEHAVE :)

Muslims in Europe and Sweden are loyal patriotic citizens, they are actively participating in building their societies and paying TAXES so that their fellow European pensioners will get diginfied retirement.

And finally let me remind you that The best player in the Swedish Football Team for example is MUSLIM SWEDE ,Zlatan Ibrahimovic :))))) in fact, he scored amazing goal against Italy which took Sweden to the next phase of the European championship.

So keep ranting and blabing the way you wish, we are here to STAY, we are here in OUR Beloved countries PROUD EUROPEANS AND MUSLIMS wether you like or not.

In the meantime why you dont have some tea and chill out ? :)

Susan | 2004-08-22 16:25 | Link

Sal says: "there are about 40 million muslims in Europe and once Turkey join the EU they will be around 110 million Muslim in Europe alone , so you better BEHAVE :)"

Euros, this is your wake-up call. Still feel good about letting Turkey into the EU?

This is your future dhimmitude, expressed as plain as the noses on your faces. "You better BEHAVE! You better bow down to our backward, intolerant 'religion' -- or ElSE!"

Wake up for
God's sake!

Susan | 2004-08-22 16:26 | Link

Swedish Observer: Sal here is NOT an "Islamist", he's just an average, garden-variety Muslim.

Scary, isn't it?

Bjørn Stærk | 2004-08-22 16:49 | Link

Susan: "Sal here is NOT an "Islamist", he's just an average, garden-variety Muslim."

And you base that on what, that he says so? At the beginning of this debate I kept asking him if he had any evidence to back up his claim that he speaks for the world's muslims. He never provided it. Didn't even try. He's not an evidence-kind of guy, apparently.

Salahudin: "Blah blah blah, another nazi zionist jew appointing himself a spoksman on behalf of Europe !!! so amusing :)"

Read the rules for posting, at the end of this page, if you haven't already done so - the part about personal attacks. I don't want to read them. Calling a person a "nazi" usually crosses the line. So does "zionist jew" the way you use it, as a slur for people you disagree with. Stop calling people names, and reply to their arguments. This will be your only warning. I will delete your comments if you don't stop.

Salahudin | 2004-08-22 16:50 | Link

Re: Susan

''
Sal says: "there are about 40 million muslims in Europe and once Turkey join the EU they will be around 110 million Muslim in Europe alone , so you better BEHAVE :)"

Euros, this is your wake-up call. Still feel good about letting Turkey into the EU?

This is your future dhimmitude, expressed as plain as the noses on your faces. "You better BEHAVE! You better bow down to our backward, intolerant 'religion' -- or ElSE!"

Wake up for
God's sake! ''
==================================

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL I could not help by fall on the floor laughing so hard until tears came from my eyes :)))))))

Susan, our distinguished ISLAMOPHOBE , is warning the EUROS ( as if European muslims are not EUROS as well ! ) not to let muslims pay your future pensions and not let them continue participating in Europe's development and filling up the gap in your demographical time bomb!! hmmmmm

Behave or else meant that we muslims will not accept to live as second class citizen, we will not accept ISLAMOPHOBIA or RACISM or worse led to the gas chambers like the jews...so again, BEHAVE OR ELSE :)))))

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

Thanks for the laugh Susan.

| 2004-08-22 16:58 | Link

Re: Bjørn Stærk

''
Susan: "Sal here is NOT an "Islamist", he's just an average, garden-variety Muslim."

And you base that on what, that he says so? At the beginning of this debate I kept asking him if he had any evidence to back up his claim that he speaks for the world's muslims. He never provided it. Didn't even try. He's not an evidence-kind of guy, apparently.''
=====================================

It seems you did not read my reply to you, I said I dont speak on behalf of the muslim world, will you care to scroll up ????

You wrote:

''Read the rules for posting, at the end of this page, if you haven't already done so - the part about personal attacks. I don't want to read them. Calling a person a "nazi" usually crosses the line. So does "zionist jew" the way you use it, as a slur for people you disagree with. Stop calling people names, and reply to their arguments. This will be your only warning. I will delete your comments if you don't stop.''
================================

So it is ok for susan to call me ''garden-variety Muslim'' this is not personal attack, right ?????????

Bjørn Stærk | 2004-08-22 17:36 | Link

Salahudin: "It seems you did not read my reply to you, I said I dont speak on behalf of the muslim world, will you care to scroll up ????"

Ah, ok - you wrote "I dont speak on behalf of all Muslims, but I am well qualified to know the general feeling among them".

"So it is ok for susan to call me ''garden-variety Muslim'' this is not personal attack, right ?????????"

Unless being called an ordinary Muslim has become a slur, yes. It's very simple. Don't call people nazi zionist jews. And if others call you ugly names, point it out to them and ask them to stop. Then get back to replying to their arguments.

A Swedish Observer | 2004-08-22 17:40 | Link

Salahudin, I feel sorry for you, I really do,

I can trace my Scandinavian roots back to the late Viking era. But I suppose you don't care. Because you are an obvious enemy of reason, moderation and truth. And if your mind really is a product of Islam then your "religion" is nothing else than a huge collective psychosis which has to be cured - preferably with arguments, education and enlightenment, otherwise with force.

Do you really believe that the West - or for that matter India, Russia or China - will tolerate this delirious madness for ever?

We westerners explore the Universe. You just explore resentment, backwardness and death.

Calm down, join the civilization - or your medieval (sic!) Caliphate-fantasies will sooner or later explode in your own face.

---

There is no peace without an Islam that recognize and rank the non-Moslem as an equal and a human being.

Susan | 2004-08-22 17:52 | Link

Bjorn,

I call Sal an "average" Muslim based on being exposed to exactly the same sentiments -- and exactly the same links, and exactly the same arguments -- over 4 years of Internet and personal dialogue with Muslims. No, it's not a scientific survey, just anectdotal, but there it is - 98 percent or so sound exactly like him.

Sal,

"Garden-variety" means "average." It's not a slur. If I meant to insult you, you'd know it. A bit hyper-sensitive, are we? Always the victim, eh Sal?

Muslim immigrants are not contributing to the European welfare state, they are making the problem worse because of all the welfare they draw and all the crime they commit (which costs
a huge amount of money to police.) Not to mention all the extra money that has to go into terrorist surveillance and court and administrative costs that need to be paid to accommodate every infantile desire that Muslims demand from us tolerant Westerners -- exemptions from photo id's, special prayer rooms, special food, seperate swimming pools for men and women -- the list goes on and on. All of which is paid out of the kaffir's pocket. In exchange for what? The assurances from our blind goverments that MAYBE some Muslims, somewhere, sometime, MAYactually benefit the kufaar more than the kufaar benefits the Muslims -- a big gamble.

And even if all this wasn't true (which it is), what kind of a people would trade away a thousand years' worth of history, tradition and FREEDOM for lousy pension benefits?

I'd rather live in a cave than be a dhimmi.

Salahudin | 2004-08-22 18:02 | Link

Re: A Swedish Observer

''
Salahudin, I feel sorry for you, I really do,''
=============================

Thank you but I dont feel sorry for you.

You wrote:

''I can trace my Scandinavian roots back to the late Viking era. But I suppose you don't care.''
==============================

No you cant, only 2 out of 10 in Sweden can prove that their grandparents are actually Swedes, dont give me this nonesense. I am very well aware of Sweden and its culture.

You wrote:

'' Because you are an obvious enemy of reason, moderation and truth.''
====================================

Proof ????

You wrote:

'' And if your mind really is a product of Islam then your "religion" is nothing else than a huge collective psychosis which has to be cured - preferably with arguments, education and enlightenment, otherwise with force. ''
==============================

Are you advocating another holocaust ??? hmmmmm

Hey buddy, rant the way you wish, we are to STAY, got that ????????

You wrote:

''
Do you really believe that the West - or for that matter India, Russia or China - will tolerate this delirious madness for ever? ''
================================

delirious madness ???? I am not aware of any madness going on in the world apart from Bush's illegal war against Muslims !!

You wrote:

''
We westerners explore the Universe. You just explore resentment, backwardness and death. ''
================================

You westerners were living on TREES when we were building schools ,universities and hospitals in Baghdad, Damascus and Muslim Spain.

let us read together how TYPICAL western city looked like:

In his book, "The Day The Universe Changed," the historian James Burke describes how the typical European townspeople lived:

"The inhabitants threw all their refuse into the drains in the center of the narrow streets. The stench must have been overwhelming, though it appears to have gone virtually unnoticed. Mixed with excrement and urine would be the soiled reeds and straw used to cover the dirt floors. (p. 32)

You wrote:

''
Calm down, join the civilization - or your medieval (sic!) Caliphate-fantasies will sooner or later explode in your own face.''
==============================

Or maybe it will in your face, dont you think ?

You wrote:

''There is no peace without an Islam that recognize and rank the non-Moslem as an equal and a human being.''
==============================

Oh really ???? How then do you explain the fact that thousands of westerners are converting to Islam every year ????

Wake up and join the civilized world, ditch the hate, the Islamophobia and the bigotry and have some tea and chil out :)

Eyal, Israel | 2004-08-22 18:05 | Link

Wow, Salahudin's posts are a fisker's paradise! Unfortunately I don't have the time to do them justice (and I don't want to test how big a post is required to crash this site) so I'll limit myself to a few points which caught my eye.

a) That screed against the Talmud keeps making the rounds of the internet. However, a lot of the quotes given as "proof" that the Talmud incites hatred are taken out of context or just plain fabricated. For a post-by-post rebuttal, go here

b) Those quotes by Jewish leaders are, again, a mixed bag. While some are accurate, I suspect some are taken out of context, and some are definitely fabricated. For example, that "we control America" quote (attributed here to Sharon) keeps getting attributed to various Israeli leaders (and for that matter, earlier versions of it included the date - I was listening to the radio that day, and didn't here anything of the kind - and something like this would have been repeated). For another, I really doubt Dayan was ignorant enough to claim that every Jewish place stood on the ruins of an Arab settlement - Tel Aviv, for instance, was a bunch of sand dunes before it was built by Jews in the early 20th century.

c) Those quotes from "The Israeli Holocaust Against the Palestinians" are filled with half-truths and things which just make me go "So?".

d) It's innacurate to say that Jews owned 6% of the land in 1947, while the Palestinians owned 90+%. According to a British report from 1946, Jews owned 8.5% of the land, Arabs owned ~18%, and the rest was state-owned.

As for the subject of the post: I have to come out strongly against the banning of any religion. Those Muslims I've known were nowhere near as rabid as Saluhadin. However, if he and his ideological brethren push the situation to the break point, it will be the Muslims in general who will pay the price. I pray they realise they need to reign in their extremists instead of tolerating them before it's too late.

Susan | 2004-08-22 18:27 | Link

Sal,

Excellent commentary! Do keep it up! So far all you've done for Islam is to make a few kind, tolerant and gentle Scandinavian people more favorably view the murderous Viking warriors they are descended from.

Why don't you invite a vew of your friends to post here too? A few more arrogant, triumphalist rants from your kind, and your hosts will be breaking out the dragon-boats and battle-axes and showing you why the word "beserk" entered the English language.

Bjørn Stærk | 2004-08-22 19:22 | Link

Susan: "A few more arrogant, triumphalist rants from your kind, and your hosts will be breaking out the dragon-boats and battle-axes and showing you why the word "beserk" entered the English language."

Jesus. Are you even aware what you're saying? The vikings were conquerors, pirates and barbarians who raped and pillaged their way all around the North-European coasts, who invaded, massacred and oppressed the natives. Not all the time, but often enough to leave their mark on much of the continent. Are you sure that's the historical precedent you want modern Scandinavians to emulate?

Let's drop the sarcasm for a moment, ok? Say it straight out: In which specific ways would you like Scandinavians to emulate Vikings in their behavior towards Muslims.

Oh, and which Scandinavians are you referring to who are moving in this direction because of Salahudin? I don't see any Scandinavians here who's been speaking favorable of vikings. But then I suppose they know Scandinavian history.

A Swedish Observer | 2004-08-22 19:31 | Link

Mr. Jihad,

Ever heard of Greece? Rome? The Celts? Persia? India? China?

Who invented the wheel? Metallurgy? Science? Mathematics? Philosophy? Architecture?

The dessert-dwellers of ancient Arabia?

You must be complete mad.

"Arab" science was nothing else than a cultural fusion of MANY races and cultures. As today, Arab "greatness" naturally depended on innovations by OTHER and EARLIER peoples. Fairly you should admit (as we westerners do) these debts - especially to the Greeks, your despised "enemy" the Jews (who lived in Arabia long before Mohammed), the Persian Sassanids (with their highly developed art of administration) and the once glorious Eastern Roman Empire (including Asia Minor, the Middle East and Egypt).

The Dome of the Rock (at the old Jewish Temple Mount) has for example the shape of a typical Christian East-Roman Martyrium (not an cave or goat-rug-tent in Arabia). The great mosque in Damascus is partly a transformed church (by the way on Roman foundation). So is "Aya Sofya" in Constantinople/Istanbul(i.e. Hagia Sofia - Church of the Holy Wisdom erected by Emperor Justin in 600th century) and hundreds and hundreds of Byzantine churches in nowadays Turkey. The so called Persian carpets were mostly made by Christian Armenians. Islamic Selsjuk-monuments is nothing else than modified Armenian architecture... And don't make fairy tales about ancient Spain. Ever heard about Celto-Iberians, Romans, Visigoths, Alans etc? Spain gave Rome several of its finest emperors and intellectuals hundreds of hundreds of years before the Arab-Syrian-Berber conquest. They were with other words NOT MUSLIMS.

If you, Salahudin, is the flower of Islam (which I doubt) then there is no hope for the Moslem world. Sadly enough.

Paul M., USA | 2004-08-22 20:04 | Link

“I wont call you the JEW, because you admit you are jew, you are at least brave enough to say who you are, and because of that, I will call you PAUL only.”

Salahuddin, you’re too good to me.

I thought I could post once only to this thread and not get drawn into the arguments. So much for that.

Rune: I appreciate your goodwill, but in some important ways I think you miss the point.

You are right about the importance of context to Talmudic (and other) quotations, but the Talmud does not, I think, contain “lots of garbage.” From the (very) little that I have dipped into it, what it contains is a huge amount of nit-picking—what Jews call “Pilpul.” For orthodox Jews (which is not me), the Bible is holy writ. It cannot therefore be changed or denied, but it can be interrogated and interpreted. Pilpul is the continuing process of argumentation by which Jewish religious leaders, the great Rabbis, take texts from the Bible—which are often contradictory, ambiguous, outdated or seeming to run against our ethical sense—and derive from them rulings that base an ethical contemporary life on the word of God. All the arguments are written down and collected in the Talmud and in turn provide fodder for further interpretations. In all that mass of pilpul it is easy for the malicious to pick out isolated snippets that make Jews look like whatever they want them to look like. It is also not hard for extremist Jews to pick and choose bits of argument to support extreme positions. I’m guessing the Hadiths provide a similar mechanism to apply 7th century pronouncements to modern life, and I imagine they gives the same scope to ill-wishers and extremists. Contrary to friend Salahuddin, there are indeed answers to his slurs available, as a quick Web search would show him. They also tend to be Powered by Pilpul. One example:

http://talmud.faithweb.com/

The issue I care more about is the anti-Semitism. You are right that Salahuddin has no evidence of anyone’s Jewishness but mine, and that Mashiki has stated that he is not Jewish, but this is beside the point. Salahuddin’s anti-Semitism shows in his repeated attempts to dismiss the message by attacking the race of the messenger. It does not matter that Mashiki is not Jewish or that I am, what matters is that—for Salahuddin—being a Jew is condemnation in itself and that—for Salahuddin—“Jew” is always paired with “hateful” or “Nazi” or “coward.” From there he has already made the very short hop to deriding all criticism as Jewish (“Blah blah blah, another nazi zionist jew appointing himself a spoksman on behalf of Europe !!!”).

Bjørn: Yes, I read the posting rules. I appreciate the spirit that underlies them, as I appreciate your blog generally. I won’t press the point, but I made my suggestion because what started as a debate about the nature, role and limits of anti-Islamic extremism has vanished. It is lost under a blaze of extremist flames, and I can get that from a thousand other sites. I am outvoted many to one, and that’s alright.

A few final words for Salahuddin: Perhaps “Arabs can’t be anti-Semites because they’re Semites” plays better in Arabic, but I think your command of English is good enough to understand why it’s foolish and irrelevant. If you prefer, feel free to translate any reference to anti-Semitism you come across as “anti-Judaism.”

And a second, minor point: If you read all the way to the bottom of your Guardian article about MEMRI, you would have found a link:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,10551,778373,00.html

It leads to a very articulate rebuttal by MEMRI’s Yigal Carmon. (I know. He’s Jewish, it doesn’t count....)

Salahudin | 2004-08-22 20:15 | Link

Re: Susan

''
I'd rather live in a cave than be a dhimmi. ''
===========================

But you wont be able to wear the BURQA in cave, will you ? :))))

One of the commonest charges brought against Islam historically, and as a religion, by Western writers is that it is intolerant.

[** Long article DELETED. Okay, Salahudin - now you're beginning to piss me off. I warned you above not to post entire articles in comments. Now you do it again, but you pretend that you're the author, while it was actually written by Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall. Wtf? Before you post anything more, you will confirm that you've read the posting rules and intend to follow them in the future. Anything else and you're banned. -BS 22/8]

Salahudin | 2004-08-22 20:32 | Link

Re: Susan

''Sal,

waoooooooooo, more hate and incitment against muslims !!!

very impressive.

You wrote:

''Why don't you invite a vew of your friends to post here too? A few more arrogant, triumphalist rants from your kind, and your hosts will be breaking out the dragon-boats and battle-axes and showing you why the word "beserk" entered the English language. ''
===================================

Ohhhhh, Susan is hoping for another holocaust!! but this time Muslim Holocaust !

Keep dreaming Susan, meanwhile more and more westerners are embracing the great religion of ISLAM:

Illinois residents find faith in Islam

Daily Herald - 8/16/2004

[** Yet another long article DELETED. -BS 22/8.]

http://www.islamonline.com/cgi-bin/news_service/world_full_story.asp?service_id=932

Chill out Susan, dont be consumed with hate, bigotry and Islamophobia.

HATE IS FIRE THAT ENGULFS THE HATER FIRST.

Bjørn Stærk | 2004-08-22 20:36 | Link

Paul: "I won’t press the point, but I made my suggestion because what started as a debate about the nature, role and limits of anti-Islamic extremism has vanished. It is lost under a blaze of extremist flames, and I can get that from a thousand other sites."

Yes, it is a bit off-topic. I'm allowing it because it's so rare for anyone to stand up for Islam here. Too bad Salahudin seems so eager to break the posting rules.

Salahudin | 2004-08-22 20:39 | Link

re: Born:

''
[** Long article DELETED. Okay, Salahudin - now you're beginning to piss me off. I warned you above not to post entire articles in comments. ''
==================================

No you did not, where you did that ????

You wrote:

''Now you do it again, but you pretend that you're the author, while it was actually written by Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall. Wtf? Before you post anything more, you will confirm that you've read the posting rules and intend to follow them in the future. Anything else and you're banned. -BS 22/8]''
=============================

I am sorry but I am not pretending to be the author, I always give SOURCE, if you scroll up and see ALL my posts I always give the source, this time, I forgot to put the link, anyway, here is the link again:

http://muslim-canada.org/tolerance.htm

I think my posts are causing so much unrest here, no problem, if you want to ban me, go ahead, I dont really care.

for the rest, if you want to continue debating Islam, you are welcome to my forum on:

http://forum.jamaat.net

Salahudin | 2004-08-22 20:44 | Link

Ok, I saw that now, I dont usually go back to my posts after I post them.

Thanks Bjørn, I shall be more careful when I post next time.

Bjørn Stærk | 2004-08-22 20:49 | Link

Salahudin: "Thanks Bjørn, I shall be more careful when I post next time."

Great, then you're more than welcome to stay.

Rune Kristian Viken, Oslo | 2004-08-22 20:57 | Link

Paul M:

Rune: I appreciate your goodwill, but in some important ways I think you miss the point.

Nah, I just don't follow through the argument.

The Bible contains loads of garbage.

The Talmud contains loads of garbage.

The Qu'ran contains loads of garbage.

The Hadiths contain loads of garbage.

In short, I think the "great three" religions from the middle east (The jewish religion, christianity and Islam) contains loads upon loads of garbage.

Luckily for us, christians and jews mostly seems to have modernized quite a bit, and has luckily for the world become more 'tame'.

Unfortunately loads of muslims has not modernized yet - and isn't tame at all.

Susan | 2004-08-22 21:03 | Link

Sal, you are the one who is inciting people to murder with your arrogance, insults and nastiness.

Posting stories about Islamic conversions is no argument -- it's nothing. I've seen them all and heard them all before. There are lots of people leaving Islam as well in the West -- yet you guys never post those do you? In any case it doesn't "prove" anything you posted. It's just flailing and noise.

Bjorn: Chill out. I know that the Vikings were murderous and blood-thirsty. I'm half-Celt.

It was a lame joke -- meaning that Sal's posts are so inciteful and intolerant, it could turn even today's ultra-tolerant Scandinavians into angry Beserkers. That's all I meant.

Sal: no one here's calling for another "Holocaust" against Muslims -- most of the people who resemble Nazis in Europe today seem to be the Muslims who attack Jews and burn down their synagogues. Quit playing the victim game -- it really doesn't add anything to the conversation. In fact it only makes things worse. Westerners are getting sorely tired of the victim culture.

Totoro, U.S. | 2004-08-22 21:13 | Link

Eyal, Israel . . .

Thank you for defending the Talmud. Rune Christian hurt my feelings when he called it "a stinking pile of crap."

Susan | 2004-08-22 21:21 | Link

Slightly OT: Another Jewish community centre burned in Paris today:

http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=25&story_id=10909

Rune Kristian Viken, Oslo | 2004-08-22 21:26 | Link

Toronto:

Thank you for defending the Talmud. Rune Christian hurt my feelings when he called it "a stinking pile of crap."

Well, don't feel to hurt. I'm pretty non-religious - and tend to consider most religious texts that call for war or promotes abuse stinking piles of crap - no matter the what interpretations is considered 'correct' at the these days.

That probably moves me even lower than christians and jews in some peoples eyes though - as I'm an *shudder* Atheist! :-)

Even worse, I tend to be a .. blasphemer!

Side note: My name is Rune Kristian, with a K, not Ch.

| 2004-08-22 21:37 | Link

Rune,

"I appreciate your goodwill, but in some important ways I think you miss the point.

Nah, I just don't follow through the argument."

I thought I remembered your views on religion. I'm not troubled by them, so long as you and other people are able to differentiate between the teachings on one hand, and the individual religionists and how they use those teachings, on the other. It doesn't seem to me that you have a problem there.

For me, anyway, the comments about the Talmud were a side trip. I wanted mainly to make to you the point that anti-Semitism did not lie in calling Mashiki a Jew when he's not, but in making Jewishness a test of acceptability.

Regards,

John P | 2004-08-22 22:19 | Link

Sal has lost. I tended to agree with Bjorn's point of view at this thread's beginning, but after sifting through the insane rants of Salahudin I'm leaning more toward banishment. What Sal refers to as islamophobia is actually the West's observation that the Muslim world is backward and becomming more so with each passing year. If people like Sal refuse to acknowledge even basic facts of history, if they're unanble to face up to the obvious and deep failures of Islam and the ugly realities emerging from them, then how is dialogue possible? Like the poster 'Susan' I'ver been reading similar empty rants for years now.

Sal's assertions that there are 2 billion muslims and not 1.2 billion that ALL statistics ( UN and otherwise) consistently support is so typical of this man,s sate of delusion. No doubt that within a fortnight Sal's official figure will be well past 3 billion, or perhaps even 4! What does one say? Merely pointing out the obvious falseness of Sal's assertions earns one, in Sal's mind anyhow, the label islamophobe.

Islam is loathe to admit that anyone could possibly convert to another belief system, but unbeknownst to Sal increasing numbers of Muslims are abandoning Islam either to embrace Christianity or to go secular. So when islamist outfits like 'islamonline' reluctanly and grudgingly report that some 40 churches have been built in Istanbul in the past 5 years alone, you know the real figure may well be double. In Iran, once the beacon of Islam's "world historical mission", the mosques, apart from a few old bearded men, sit virtually empty. Similar conversion movements are now happening among the Berbers of North Africa, the aboriginals of the region, with whole villages converting in a single swoop.

Sal doesn't know about any of this because in the Muslim world apostasy is severely punished. The converts from Islam to Christianity, consequently, don't even bother telling people like Sal, because mentalities like Sal's abhor the truth, for accepting 'truth' requires both courage and reason.....two qualities Sal obviously lacks. As a result when faced with unpleasant and irrefutable realities like Muslim conversions to Christianity Sal has no choice BUT to react violently. He cannot suffer the negation of of his own warped world-view, it tends to promote the appearance rational discourse, AND the sensation that one is perhaps 'missing something'.

Sal has given us all a good lesson in Islam, the only kind we really need. He can no go back to laughing on the floor, I guess

Susan | 2004-08-22 23:14 | Link

Sal, I looked around that site you linked to prove Islam's "tolerance."

I found this link: http://muslim-canada.org/ch12hamid.html which features:

1.) an apologia for "penalties" for Muslims who want to leave Islam and

2.) an apologia for forcing dhimmis to wear distinctive clothing (such as yellow stars?) in the name of (all preposterous things!) preserving ethnic diversity!

I'm overwhelmed by the tolerance, there. NOT!

| 2004-08-22 23:56 | Link

Back to the original question: Bjørn writes about anti-Islamic extremism. One of his points is that it is unjust to blame Muslims for our side’s extremism and he is right, but....

The question that has the West excited at the moment has to do with how, exactly, Islam intends to relate to us. As with any movement of more than a billion people, there are surely multiple answers. Our problem is that we are having trouble hearing more than the extreme ones. It worries us a lot that there seems to be a deafening silence from a moderate, liberal Islam. Moslems in our own communities of Europe and the US make essentially the same point that Bjørn does, that they shouldn’t have to swear their innocence to us, or repeatedly promise us that they are against the Islamicists. I agree with that argument as far as it goes, but it seems disingenuous. I don’t need for Muslims to proclaim their peaceful intentions to _me_—what I have been looking for, and not finding, is Muslims taking a public stand against those who are perverting _Islam_.

The Jews, when we are not busy plotting against the rest of the world, are quite capable of arguing hotly against each other’s positions. Not only are we not monolithic supporters of Sharon, Zionism or Israel—see, for example, Peace Now, Rabbis for Human Rights, Gush Shalom, B’tselem, Not In My Name, etc., etc., etc.—we even make up a significant part of the Palestinian International Solidarity Movement (not to mention providing one of its founders). Likewise, the West has a multitude of loud voices, both Christian and secular, to protest what we see as our own injustices. Open any paper in Europe or America to read about the latest demonstration. Why then, we worry, don’t we hear of marches, demonstrations, sit-ins, lectures and conferences organized by Muslims disgusted by Islamic political repression, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism, gender discrimination, racism, religious persecution or terrorism? Surely there have to be more voices than Sari Nusseibeh in Jerusalem. Where are they?

None of this excuses any extremism of ours, but it does make it harder to argue against our extremists if we have to proclaim a moderate Islamic mainstream without vital evidence. The situation is compounded by the fact that terrorists, like Mao’s famous revolutionary fish, swim in the water of the population at large. If that population is unprotesting, how long should non-Muslims believe that they are unsympathetic? I don’t expect people in Assad’s Syria or the Mullahs’ Iran to speak out—I wouldn’t—but what’s stopping them in New York, London and Paris?

Paul M., USA | 2004-08-23 00:09 | Link

Sorry; forgot to sign the last post.

James PA.,USA | 2004-08-23 03:45 | Link

Well it boils down to this:

Because the Hammer beat the Religion of Peace back at Tours, Phillip won Lepanto, and Sobieski relieved Vienna there was a "West." Without such an entity there would be no science, no democracy and no separation of church and state. We would all be drinking camel piss and our women would have no sexual organs.

Mankind squeaked out by stopping Islam's advance, but it looks like the battle has to be won again.

| 2004-08-23 08:51 | Link

Thanks to Eyal for his Talmud
link. Here is another site
I just found on Google

http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/

Salahudin | 2004-08-23 11:16 | Link

Re: Susan

''
Sal, you are the one who is inciting people to murder with your arrogance, insults and nastiness. ''
================================

Are you for real ? or are you another jew here inciting hate against Muslims ?

You wrote:

''Posting stories about Islamic conversions is no argument -- it's nothing. ''
====================================

But it is everything to post false conversion stories from Islam, right ?

The question is why thousands of westerners are converting to ISLAM every year if Islam really that bad ?? I am sure you have no answer.

You wrote:

''I've seen them all and heard them all before. There are lots of people leaving Islam as well in the West ''
================================

Nonesense, you have to prove that using NETURAL soruces ( like the way I proved the spread of Islam using NON MUSLIM WESTERN SOURCES )

You wrote;

''Sal: no one here's calling for another "Holocaust" against Muslims''
=================================

You and jews like you are certainly doing just that, calling for another holocaust but this time against Muslims.

You wrote:

''-- most of the people who resemble Nazis in Europe today seem to be the Muslims who attack Jews and burn down their synagogues.''
================================

That's bullshit, IN FACT, Most of the nazis in Europe and their supporters seem to be JEWS, here is the proof:

EVIDENCE NO.1 FROM THE JEWISH ISRAELI NEWSPAPER, HAARETZ:

The Jews who voted for the anti muslim French neo nazi leader, Le Pen

Source:
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=160403&contrassID=2&subContrassID=15&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

EVIDENCE NO.2:

The neo nazi racist anti muslim BRITISH NATIONAL PARTY is publishing articles by JEWISH WRITERS AND SUPPORTERS PUBLICALLY CALLING FOR GENOCIDE AND EXPLUSION OF MUSLIMS FROM EUROPE:

Islam is the menace

A Jewish correspondent, Leslie Dale writes on why Jews and Christians have common cause for concern as Islam spreads across Europe.

Source: The neo nazi British National Party:

http://www.bnp.org.uk/articles/islam_menace.htm

I challeng you and any other Islamophobe here to refute the above DISGUSTING cooperation between Europe's jews and the neo nazis !

| 2004-08-23 11:41 | Link

RE: Susan | 2004-08-22 21:21

''Slightly OT: Another Jewish community centre burned in Paris today:

http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=25&story_id=10909''
==========================================

Meanwhile, the jewish terrorists shot and injured small Palestinean boy !! VERY BRAVE:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/D2AD47D9-9389-458B-9EA3-1372679295D2.htm

Salahudin | 2004-08-23 11:46 | Link

And more on the activities of some jewish terrorist groups operating in occupied Palestine:

Jewish groups: Raze mosques, rebuild temple
By Firas Al-Atraqchi

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/58087655-FE76-4764-9598-A952E08FEFC8.htm

Bjørn Stærk | 2004-08-23 12:53 | Link

Salahudin: "Are you for real ? or are you another jew here inciting hate against Muslims ?"

Hey, watch it. You've broken the posting rules here so often that I expect you to err on the side of politeness in the future. That means no using "jew" as a slur. I know you think they're evil and that they're lurking everywhere, but if you insist on accusing random readers of being undercover jews, I'll insist on deleting your comments.

A Swedish Observer | 2004-08-23 14:51 | Link

Salahudin,

I am very well aware of Sweden and its culture.

Så bra. Då förstår du säkert att jag tycker din nedsättande syn på demokrati passar sällsynt dåligt ihop med den svenska samhällsformen.

Now, just one more question - if you're still there:

Is there ANYTHING you actually like or love (besides your narcissistic "belief")?

---

Correction and elucidation concerning Haghia Sophia in Constantinople: The builder was the Roman Emperor Justinianus - in plain English Justinian, 6th century. The architects were Anthemios of Tralles and Isidoros of Miletos (the two greatest mathematical physicists of the age - both Christian Greeks). The Ottomans made it to a mosque after the fall of Constantinople 1453, but the secularist Kemal Atatürk actually transformed this extraordinary building into a museum 1934. Unfortunately nearly every other Byzantine shrine in Turkey has been "converted" or destroyed. Asking the local populace, they'll always rattle of the same string: that these buildings are "old Turkish" or just "Moslem".

Why is this important?

Because it seems to be the way Islam writes "history" EVERYWHERE ON EARTH (as Salahudin demonstrates here and now).

Terrorize, conquer, steal, convert, distort, erase...

We shouldn't outlaw a religion (i.e. Islam). But we can - and should - definitely outlaw this kind of criminal behavior.

Salahudin | 2004-08-23 15:19 | Link

Re: Bjørn Stærk

''Salahudin: "Are you for real ? or are you another jew here inciting hate against Muslims ?"

This is getting RIDICILOUS, I cant say whatever I want as long as I am not breaking any rules here, I dont accept you telling me what to say and not what to say, got that Bjørn ?

I am asking is she is another JEW ? what's wrong with that ?

You blog is FILLED with horrible name callings against muslims and Islam, I did not see you telling them to stop it ??? I did not see you for example stop using the RIDICULOUS term dhimmi when refering to non muslims living in muslim state because most of those islamophobes dont live in any muslim state so they are using the term as SLUR ?

IT IS OK FOR EXAMPLE FOR ONE OF THE ISLAMOPHOBES HERE TO CALL ME : mr jihad, I guess that is not slur, right ?????

''A Swedish Observer | 2004-08-22 19:31 | Link

Mr. Jihad,''

Bjørn, This is your LAST warning, I cant and will not put up with such DISGUSTING BLATANT HYPOCRISY, you either be FAIR or I am out of here, you can enjoy the Islamophobe scums here alone, I am not interested, thank you.

Paul M., USA | 2004-08-23 15:32 | Link

I think Salahuddin is paving the way: He won't argue within reasonable bounds, but he is preparing his ground so that, when he is thrown out, he can go off and tell everyone that those Jews and Islamophobes ganged up to discriminate against him. It feels a little like the way much Middle East politics is conducted.

Herbie, NY NY | 2004-08-23 15:58 | Link

Salahidin's postings do appear to a mixture of contempt and illogic. He also appears to confuse tolerance with indifference on the part of the West. It would appear that he is only able to accept tolerance if it apples to Islam, but not to any other religion. He has noted several times that Islam is a fast growing "religion" in the West. One can do anything with numbers, but the number of people converting from Islam to another religion is not widely advertised, but does appear to be increasing. The reason it is not widely advertised is that such an act is considered apostasy and the penalty is death if the person does not return to Islam. As for his other assertions, they have either been adequately responded to or are just so absurd that people have not even bothered to respond. At some point -- and it appears to have begun -- the West will have to begin to protect itself from such absurdity or Islam will have to begin to change or, in my view we will be in a war for the soul of civilization. At bottom, any social view or religion has to be able to accommodate itself to other and competing views or face a war. Any religion or social view must also have to be measured against some social standard. The best standard, it seems to me, is whether it has or offers the potential for making one’s life better here and now and not in an afterworld of virgins (it is not without interest that only men in Islam get virgins and women get nothing). By that standard Islam is a gross and terrible failure. The economies of Islamic countries are a basket case, women are kept illiterate, life spans are low, living standards continue to decrease and education -- such as it is-- has not offered up any advance in human knowledge. If Islam is not prepared to accept on an equal footing other views then in my view, it should be banned

Susan | 2004-08-23 16:04 | Link

Where are Oyvind and momo to defend their buddy, "moderate" Muslim Sal?

Bjørn Stærk | 2004-08-23 16:13 | Link

Salahudin: "I am asking is she is another JEW ? what's wrong with that ?"

What's wrong with it is that you spit out "jew" as a slur against all people you disagree with. I don't think it's a slur myself, and there are some actual Jews present here. But you use it as an ad hominem, a personal attack intended to cast suspicion on why people disagree with you instead of explaining why they're wrong.

"You blog is FILLED with horrible name callings against muslims and Islam, I did not see you telling them to stop it ???"

There's so much being written here that some things just slip me by. I'm paying special attention to you because you keep violating the rules, (which is pretty amazing considering that all I ask of you is that you try to be civil). No I don't think it's okay for others to call you "mr Jihad" or other slurs. Here's what you do if that happens: You reply "hey that's a personal attack - stop it", and then you ignore the attack, and reply to their arguments. That's how most people here have been reacting to your personal attacks. Learn from that. Point it out, ignore it, and leave it to me to deal with it. And that's what I'm doing with you now, dealing with your personal attacks so that everyone else around here can concentrate on your arguments.

"This is your LAST warning, I cant and will not put up with such DISGUSTING BLATANT HYPOCRISY, you either be FAIR or I am out of here"

If I'm not fair, then help me to be. The way to do that is 1) follow the rules yourself, 2) point it out if others don't, and 3) stick to the facts and arguments. Be better than they are, be polite even when you think they're dead wrong. Remember that whenever you use personal attacks, that reflects badly not only on you but on everything you stand for.

Herbie, NY NY | 2004-08-23 17:07 | Link

Salahudin says "You blog is FILLED with horrible name callings against muslims and Islam, I did not see you telling them to stop it ???"

The short answer is “Should we tolerate . . . religious movements which are hostile to toler4ence and seek to destroy all mechanisms which protect it [and which] seek . . . to impose their own despotic regimes. * * * Thus it is that unlimited tolerance turns against itself and destroys the very condition of its own existence.” From "Freedom Fame Lying and Betrayal" by Lesek Kolakowski, p. 38. Winner of the Kluge Prize of one million dollars which is given for lifetime achievement in the humanities and social sciences -- areas of scholarship for which there are no Nobel Prizes. For Salahudin, tolerence is a one way street. What he will not accept is that Islam is just another point of view. He demands that it be accepted as THE correct point of view and if not then the rest of the world should perish. If as he says he is not interested in democracy and wishes to be governed by Sharia law then he has every right to do so privately, but if he seeks to impose that view on the rest then he should expect resistance and should consider going back to a country where Sharia law governs. As one judge said in a famous case, "your right to swing your arm stops where the plaintiff's nose begins." Well Islam's "rights" stop where my begin

Susan | 2004-08-23 17:53 | Link

You have caught it in a nutshell, Herbie. The problem with Islam is that it wants the exclusive right to swing its fist, whether there's a face in range or not. And its adherents don't understand why we object -- vociferously -- to having a fist slammed into our faces when they swing.

A Swedish Observer | 2004-08-23 17:56 | Link

Salahudin,

What exactly is an "Islamophobe"?

Everyone who doesn't share your "belief", your contempt for democracy or your alarming anti-Semitism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Marr)?

Everyone who felt anger and sorrow after 9/11? After Bali, Madrid or Khobar (where my Swedish fellow-countryman Magnus Johansson was decapitated in the name of Allah)?

Everyone who isn't a Muslim according to your own standard?

This is a discussion-board.

You don't respect fair play. You don't care about facts or arguments. Neither do you answer the questions brought to you.

Why?

Because the fantasy ideology of yours is a murderous and totalitarian creed that claims 100% submission (actually a REAL menace to freedom and world peace).

Jihad is Jihad and you have exhaustively demonstrate who you are: Mr. Jihad.

This is not a slur- this is a objective truth in accordance with the learning of the Moslem Brotherhood, Sayyid Qutb, Sayyid Muhamud Taleqani, Mawlana Mawdudi and other islamist gurus in our time.

But to correct any error of judgement I'll give you a last chance: Are you for or against these guys?

Salahudin | 2004-08-23 18:04 | Link

Re: Bjørn Stærk |

''
Salahudin: "I am asking is she is another JEW ? what's wrong with that ?"

What's wrong with it is that you spit out "jew" as a slur against all people you disagree with. ''
===================================

I know for sure ( due to 6 years experience in internet debating ) that most of the hate and the incitment against muslims are coming either from:

1- JEWS and zionists specifically and

2- Envagelical christian neo cons.

So, by exeprience I know wether someone is jew or not from the way they write and the LIES they usually parrot and the hate links they post.

I reserve the right to question who is the person I am debating and what is their background and in this light, I am questioing wether Susan is jew or not !

Susan's hate and inctiment against Islam and Muslims has all the marks of a JEWESS, dont you think I have the right to ask her wether she is jew or not ?

You disagreed with me in many occassions, did I ever call you JEW ?? NO..why, because you DONT adovate genocide against Muslims nor you INCITE hate against Islam.

I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, but I have SERIOUS problem with JEWS advocating HOLOCAUST and Genocide against Muslims.

You wrote:

''
I don't think it's a slur myself, and there are some actual Jews present here. But you use it as an ad hominem, a personal attack intended to cast suspicion on why people disagree with you instead of explaining why they're wrong.''
===============================

As I pointed above, you disagreed with me yet I did NOT call you jew, you behave as normal civilized person, the jews on the other hand specially the zionist ones ( like most of the jews in this blog ) behave like the nazis ( calling and inciting genocide against Muslims )

I mean just look what Susan and others wrote and how they incite hate against Muslims !!!

You wrote:

''
"You blog is FILLED with horrible name callings against muslims and Islam, I did not see you telling them to stop it ???"

When I violated the rules of posting ( but posting long articles ) I realized my mistake and I promised you not to do that again and I kept my word.

But to tell me not to question if someone is jew or not is beyond reason !!!

You wrote:

'' No I don't think it's okay for others to call you "mr Jihad" or other slurs. Here's what you do if that happens: You reply "hey that's a personal attack - stop it", and then you ignore the attack, and reply to their arguments. That's how most people here have been reacting to your personal attacks. Learn from that. Point it out, ignore it, and leave it to me to deal with it. ''
=============================

Granted. but why you always watch what I write and you dont watch what they write ??

You wrote:

''
And that's what I'm doing with you now, dealing with your personal attacks so that everyone else around here can concentrate on your arguments.''
=================================

Let us make it clear, is questioning someone jewishness amount to personal attack ?? I DONT THINK SO.

You wrote:

''If I'm not fair, then help me to be. The way to do that is 1) follow the rules yourself, 2) point it out if others don't, and 3) stick to the facts and arguments. Be better than they are, be polite even when you think they're dead wrong. Remember that whenever you use personal attacks, that reflects badly not only on you but on everything you stand for. ''
=================================

Sure, I will follow the rules, but I wont put up with ANTI MUSLIM NCITMENT AND HATE coming from the JEWS here in this blog, you have to be watching them as well, i dont think calling for GENOCIDE against muslims will reflect good on your own blog, dont you think ?

Have a nice day.

Bjørn Stærk | 2004-08-23 18:18 | Link

A Swedish Observer: "Jihad is Jihad and you have exhaustively demonstrate who you are: Mr. Jihad."

Hey, didn't you read my comment? Now you're pissing me off. You're new around here, just like Salahudin, but this thread has given you more than enough reason to read the posting rules and realize that they're meant to be followed.

So what I said to Salahudin applies equally to you: Err on the side of politeness. No calling people names. No ad hominems. Respond to his arguments. Or get lost.

Herbie and Susan: Stay away from the moderation debate. It's not relevant to any of Salahudin's arguments whether he thinks I'm being unfair to him. This is not about Islam, it's about some new readers who barge in without learning the rules.

Salahudin: "Susan's hate and inctiment against Islam and Muslims has all the marks of a JEWESS, dont you think I have the right to ask her wether she is jew or not ?"

No you do not. All that matters is whether her arguments are correct or not. Anything else - and this ad hominem in particular - is irrelevant. If you have a problem with that, leave.

Salahudin | 2004-08-23 18:22 | Link

Re: A Swedish Observer

''
Salahudin,

Jihad is Jihad and you have exhaustively demonstrate who you are: Mr. Jihad.''

===================================

Did you see that Bjørn ? he is insisting on attacking me personally, are you going to WARN HIM or is it ok since he is attacking a muslim??????

Herbie NY | 2004-08-23 18:32 | Link

Salahudin says “I reserve the right to question WHO is the person I am debating and WHAT is their background and in this light, I am questioning wether Susan is jew or not !” AND “But to tell me not to question if someone is jew or not is beyond reason !!!” (EMPHASIS MINE)

In a word – bullshit. The integrity of an argument rises or falls on the arguments presented and NOT by who is making the argument OR THEIR BACKGROUND.

Indeed the problem Salahudin presents is endemic to Islam and so in an Islamic Court the word of an unbeliever is not worth the same of a Moslem and the word of a woman is worth even less. What it comes down to, in his view ,is not what is said but who says it. Thus under his view, arguments by: Christians, Jews, women and/or Moslems that have converted to another religion are worth less if anything at all.

Salahudin | 2004-08-23 18:38 | Link

Re: Bjørn Stærk

''
Salahudin: "Susan's hate and inctiment against Islam and Muslims has all the marks of a JEWESS, dont you think I have the right to ask her wether she is jew or not ?"

No you do not. All that matters is whether her arguments are correct or not. ==============================

AMAZING !! you want me to debate wether her call for Genocide against muslims is correct or not ? you want to call INCITMENT AND HATE AGAINST MUSLIMS an argument ?????? THIS IS RIDICILOUS.

I am wondering if you will call it an ''argument'' if I was calling for genocide against the jews !!

You wrote:

''Anything else - and this ad hominem in particular - is irrelevant. If you have a problem with that, leave. ''
==============================

So questioning if someone is JEW or not is called ''ad hominem'' while calling for GENOCIDE and incting hate against muslims is called argument !! THIS IS BEYOND PATHETIC.

I am wondering what the jews have done so that the word JEW becomes personal insult ???

I was looking for constructive debate but with such Jewish violent hate filled posts that OPENLY call for GENOCIDE against Muslims without you doing anything about it coupled with your UNFAIR approach made me realize that
it is useless to continue here.

I am out of here, I cant take this PATHETIC RIDICILOUS hypocrisy and double standards.

Have a very blessed days to come.

Bjørn Stærk | 2004-08-23 18:53 | Link

Herbie: I told you to stay away from the moderation debate. Meta is off-topic.

Salahudin: "I am out of here, I cant take this PATHETIC RIDICILOUS hypocrisy and double standards."

Goodbye, then. There are no conscious double standards here, but as I said I make mistakes. Let me just clear up for the record what you can and can not say here:

You can say that all the world's Jews or Muslims should be killed, (though I didn't see the comment where this was said).

You can not use slurs or ad hominems against other people in this forum.

The first is a point of view, the second is an irrelevant personal attack. This isn't about the moral or factual value of your statements, but about keeping the debate civil and on topic. Since you're not able to see this, it's probably right of you to leave.

Herbie NY | 2004-08-23 18:56 | Link

Salahudin: No PLEASE DON'T GO. Stay and make comments. Its been so very long since I've seen such illogical arguement and conclusions that do not follow from the premises stated. What a treat! If you leave we will all have to go back to logical argument and thought progression. How dull that issues would actually be debated on the merits and not discounted because they have been offered by -- perish the thought -- a Jew.

Herbie NY | 2004-08-23 18:58 | Link

Bjorn: you say "Herbie: I told you to stay away from the moderation debate. Meta is off-topic." I don't follow what you are asking

Herbie NY, NY | 2004-08-23 19:03 | Link

Bjorn: you say "Herbie: I told you to stay away from the moderation debate. Meta is off-topic." I don't follow what you are asking

Sandy P | 2004-08-23 19:27 | Link

Sal,

--Illinois residents find faith in Islam

Daily Herald - 8/16/2004--

We're also paying attention to what went on in Burbank.

Sandy P | 2004-08-23 19:38 | Link

I don't know if Sal is coming back for another round, but he's missing the point on MEMRI - if Sal has a problem w/the translation, he should get his own blog, translate the article(s) for us and compare and contrast.

Sometimes one has to look past the messenger and look at the message.

Susan | 2004-08-23 19:38 | Link

Sal wrote:

"AMAZING !! you want me to debate wether her call for Genocide against muslims is correct or not ? you want to call INCITMENT AND HATE AGAINST MUSLIMS an argument ?????? THIS IS RIDICILOUS."

I did not call for genocide against Muslims. All I did was make a lame joke about Vikings. You can say it was distasteful, go ahead, I have a peculiar sense of humor sometimes, but IT WAS NOT a call to GENOCIDE. QUIT slandering me.

As for the charge of "Islamophobia", yes I am "phobic" about a belief system which wants to make me a third-class citizen in my own country. Sue me.

Once again: QUIT playing the enternal, whining, moaning, cringing VICTIM game. You will get NOWHERE with us using those tactics.

Rune Kristian Viken, Oslo | 2004-08-23 19:46 | Link

Bjørn, let me quote something Salahudin has said in this thread:

Salahudin clearly states that this is a E-"jihd" for him, I interpret that as a "jihad".

That someone then calls him "Mr. Jihad" is not a slur, he has claimed to be on one.

Salahudin: When you yourself actually says that you're on a jihad, why do you have something against being called "Mr. Jihad" ?

Herbie NY | 2004-08-23 19:58 | Link

Susan: I don't think your comments were fair regarding the Vikings. Centuries of rape, pillage, rape, pillage and then they got it out of their system. :-)

Bjørn Stærk | 2004-08-23 20:09 | Link

Herbie: "I don't follow what you are asking"

You do when I'm wearing the moderator hat. Or you leave. Up to you. I'll tell you why I don't want meta debates here. First of all they are off-topic. Second, they're inherently about the person, not the issue. Third, they deteriote into flame wars faster than any other debate. Look at any random flame war infested Usenet group. So leave meta to me.

Rune-Kristian: "That someone then calls him "Mr. Jihad" is not a slur, he has claimed to be on one."

Hm, maybe. But he saw it as a slur against him, and that's all that matters. There's really no point discussing what people in this forum are or aren't, so if Salahudin finds "Mr Jihad" deeply offensive, we lose nothing by banning it. "Your views are ignorant" is ok. "You are dumb" is irrelevant. But we'll continue this in private. As I said, meta is off-topic.

Herbie NY, NY | 2004-08-23 20:25 | Link

Bjorn: I asked a Q. becuase I do not and did not understand what you are asking. I do not understand what you mean by a Meta debate. I had thought my Q was pretty clear. Nor am I sure what I said that was off the debate

Bjørn Stærk | 2004-08-23 20:55 | Link

Herbie: Sorry, I misunderstood you. A meta debate is a debate about the debate. The whole thread about Salahudin vs the posting rules, the one you followed up on here and here, is meta. And that's the kind of debate that tends to get ugly real quick. All I'm saying is that when I and Salahudin disagree about the rules, I'd rather not anyone else get involved.

Herbie NY | 2004-08-23 21:04 | Link

Bjorn

Erh? Got it :-)

bender, ny ny | 2004-08-23 21:16 | Link

can we summarize this thread? This is gonna take an hour to read.

Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-08-23 21:26 | Link

One of the posters above wrote: "I've been posting there [Little Green Footballs] for what must be two years now, and they are not irrational haters"

And it is true - the biggest problem with anti-islamism (or islamophobia as some Muslims and non-Muslims prefer to call it) is far from always antirationalism. Let's take a look at a quote from Charles Johnson at LGF:

'The fact is that across the Islamic world, you find the very highest spiritual leaders expressing virulent hatred of the West, support for jihad and suicide bombing, and Nazi-like antisemitism. I've come to believe, with reams and gigabytes of evidence, that these views do not represent a minority, as we're always told; but rather, that by any measure they have to be considered mainstream'.

Well, Charles beliefs are false. You will not find the combination of virulent hatred of the West, support of jihad and suicide bombing and Nazi-like antisemitism amongst most Muslims, you will however find it amongst many Islamists, supporters of a political ideology that gained its momentum after the failure of pan-Arab nationalism.

But let's take a closer look at these elements:

1. The virulent hatred of the 'West' is not particularly Islamic in nature, it's something you will find also amongst extremist groups in for instance Latin America. Even in Norway, hate against for instance the United States is found in both left-wing and right-wing groups. But unlike Norwegians, who have every reason to love America, many in the Muslim world have a reason for their hate, namely our support to their corrupt regimes, our roles in wars in the area, our histories as colonial masters, and so on. An article I translated from the British Islamist magazine Khilafah sums the Islamist ideology all up in one sentence: We will have to reclaim our political destiny.

2. support of jihad and suicide bombing

Suicide bombing have little support in the Muslim world, especially when civilians are targeted. It is also a rather new concept in the Muslim world, the first suicide attack in Israel - for instance - did not happen before 1994. How can anyone then claim that the support for actions like these are 'mainstream' in the Muslim world and that they have 'gigabytes of evidence' for this? It's quite simple - their 'gigabytes' are cherrypicking from different Muslim sources often combined with an understanding of the Quran that even the Islamists would not agree with (for instance anti-Islamists commonly refer to Mark Gabriel, an ex-Muslim, who claims that earlier 'peaceful' verses in the Qu'ran is abrogated by later 'bloody' ones. This interpretation is highly radical, and not shared by for instance Hamas, whose actions many try to explain with proofs from Gabriel).

Jihad is another thing. As every serious student of Islam should now Jihad is much more than a holy war, the word is not a precise equivalent to our 'crusade' and even that word is now used in so many contexts that I would not want to the job of counting them. Support of jihad? Sure, almost all muslims support the idea of strife for God (the broad meaning of jihad), some support the idea of holy war in defence (the quranic principle of war), some go further and some even claim jihad as a sixth - or seventh - pillar of the religion. However, the latter 'someones' are everything but mainstream.

3. Nazi-like antisemitism

The Nazi-like antisemitism amongst many Islamists is very often more than Nazi-like. It is Nazism converted into the Muslim world. The anti-Jewish hatred found in groups like Hamas is founded more often upon Western (!) literature like "Mein Kampf" and the false "Protocols of Zion" than upon the Qu'ran. Jews are not portrayed in a nice manner all through the Qu'ran - but they are still reverred as one of the 'ahl al-kitaab' (people of the book) and history books show us that anti-Semitism was more of a problem in Christian Europe than in Muslim Europe. Yet, few asks whether the reason for that was Christianity in itself (and few quote Luthers terribly anti-Semitic statements).

Anti-Islamists make four major mistakes:

1. They often consider Islam and Islamism to be the same thing

This is dangerous because the Muslims that are allies in the fight against extreme Islamism suddenly become enemies too.

2. They fail to understand Islamism from its modern political and social roots (including Western), roots that can in many ways be compared with the roots of political extremism (stalinism, nazism) in Europe.

This is dangerous because one will then also fail to identify those roots and take away the fertile soil surroundering them.

3. They often consider Islamism to be an irrational ideology, based on religious dogmas, when it is - more often than not - a rational, though extremist, ideology.

This is dangerous because one will then often consider Islam or Islamism to be 'pure evil' and its adherents to be terrible people no matter what their views are on for instance a democratic development (which many Islamists in fact support and fight for in their countries)

4. They base their thoughts on unacademical cherrypicking from often doubtful sources and conjure up a picture of Islam where all the faults of different Muslims around the world is put together in a gigantic jigsaw as a proof of how terrible Islam is.

This is just dangerous.

Øyvind

Susan | 2004-08-23 21:45 | Link

Yawn. Right on target, Oyvind shows up to villify "anti-Islamists" while ignoring the hateful, irrational garbage posted by Sal.

Typical lefty reaction -- worrying about the mote in the West's eye while ignoring the beam in everyone else's.

Susan | 2004-08-23 21:51 | Link

Right on cue, Oyvind shows up to slam "anti-Islamists" while ignoring the hateful, irrational garbage posted by Sal. Typical Lefty reaction. "Focus on the mote in one's own eye while ignoring the beam in the other person's."

Herbie, New York | 2004-08-23 21:56 | Link

Oyvind:

At bottom your view appears to be that the foundation for most of these problems is socio-political. I disagree. It may be aggravated by that, but in my view it has a religious foundation.

I don’t thing the quote you offer from Charles is wrong. I would also tender that religious leaders from many Islamic counties in their sermons support this view. Indeed, it is only single voices that have spoken out. If you believe that this represents “cherry picking” then all I can say is that there a lot more cherries than pits out there.

As for virulent hatred of the West, none of the other groups you mention as examples have risen to such violence. You then say that such violence is anything but mainstream. I submit that the evidence of support for such is far from being in a minority.

Susan | 2004-08-23 22:05 | Link

Sorry for the double post. The software wasn't working right when I posted the first message. Mea culpa.

Herbie: It's just Oyvind. He has to apologize for Islam and Islamists and "moderate" Muslims like Sal no matter what. This is the way of people of his political persuasion. He doesn't listen to any reason at all and millions of links to the daily insanity posted on MEMRI wont't sway him.

Herbie NY, NY | 2004-08-23 22:16 | Link

Oyvind:

Even the best book on the subject to deal with soci-political roots “Terror and Liberalism by Berman concludes that the current problems are religious in foundation and I suggest you read his analysis of Sayyid Qutb which is chilling.

Berman’s most provocative chapter -- I would assume for you -- is his attack on Noam Chomsky, who applaudes terrorism and tries to explain it as a rational response to oppression. At any rate to attribute this to a soci-political base is in my view way off the mark

Herbie NY | 2004-08-23 22:20 | Link

Susan: Oh well, you can always try :-). And if not take comfort in the view that "hiding from the light does not make it dark"

A Swedish Observer | 2004-08-23 22:37 | Link

Bjørn,

I appreciate both your site and your straightforwardness.

I've read your comment and I'll respect the posting rules.

But as Rune Kristian Viken points out Salahudin is the one who actually mentioned - and embraced - "Jihad" (yesterday morning).

However, my point is that we have to broaden this discussion by studying the close connections between the attitudes of Salahudin and the Jihad-ideology consolidated by 20th century islamists as Sayyid Qutb (Egypt), Sayyid Muhamud Taleqani (Iran), Mawlana Mawdudi (Pakistan).

I also insist that we - men and women of the western world - take a deep look down in the annals of Islam and its methods to write and rewrite history (as mentioned above - Jerusalem, Damascus, Constantinople, Spain, Armenian heritage etc.).

We modern westerners accept all sorts of cultures (take a look at our cities, our libraries, universities, museums, restaurants etc.) Actually we often LOVE all these "other" traditions (which my own CD-collection gives evidence of).

This adaptive and changeable mind is actually as old as the western civilization herself. It is our strength - but also and our weakness. Because today a very different worldview challenges our own perception - a worldview that NOT recognize or respect "the other".

And I repeat:

We should not ban a belief-system. But we should absolutely ban criminal behavior - no matter what fancy terms you give it.

Susan | 2004-08-23 22:39 | Link

Herbie: Do you not find it interesting to note that amongs all the numerous posts by Sal accusing everyone who might possibly have an objection to Islam, for whatever reason, of being "jews" "nazi jews" and "jewesses", justifying arson attacks on Jewish soup kitchens in Paris, etc., of posting all kinds of anti-Semitic drivel and hatred, the only thing that Oyvind has an objection to is that somewhere, sometime, somehow, some person may be acting unfairly toward some precious "moderate" Muslim -- who remains steadfastly and stubbornly hidden?

Herbie NY | 2004-08-23 22:52 | Link

Susan: well O's view is that this is all or largely socio-political. It is true that one should be carful not to tar all Moslems with such views. However, the voices that one hears is the Moslem world that condemn such acts are in such a small minority that they are essentially singular and the support is, in fact, mainstream in the Mosques and not cherry picking. Of more interest would be how he believes the West might usefully engage to defuse such terror. On that he says nothing except to impliedly point to the West as a source.

Susan | 2004-08-23 22:57 | Link

Herbie: of course those of Oyvind's ilk don't have any practical or intelligent solutons except to blame the West for anything that's wrong. That's been their modus operandi all along. The important thing is (to them), that no Western non-Muslim person ever say anything bad against Islam or Muslims. What Islam and Muslims say about US is of no concern to them.

Swedish Observer: Excellent post. And very true. The rewriting of our Western history to suit Islamic goals is very disturbing and upsetting. And it's pervasive. And they use the "anti-racism white liberal guilt" card to push their manufactured history onto our academic institutions, even down to our primary schools.

Susan | 2004-08-23 23:11 | Link

Swedish Observer: yes, excellent comments. It's very upsetting and disturbing how those of the Islamic persuasion are trying to rewrite our Western history in order to satisfy their own agenda. Even worse, our academic establishments seem very willing to let them have their way--down to the elementary school level. In the US they have exhibited the habit of claiming for themselves all kinds of popular historical figures, Indian Chiefs, African slave leaders, etc. Most of it is utter nonsense but they do it anyways. They even greatly offended a Native American group in Canada recently by forcing school textbooks to teach that Native Americans are really Muslims-in-disguise. To say that these folks only represent a "fringe" as Oyvind says is utter bullshit. In fact they are vetting our school textbooks and teaching our university courses.

James PA, USA | 2004-08-24 00:07 | Link

A Swedish Observer says:

"We should not ban a belief-system. But we should absolutely ban criminal behavior - no matter what fancy terms you give it."

I distinguish between outlawing and banning. I think we should intellectually ban a belief that rejects all other belief and which prescribes behavior that subsumes man's laws. Laughter works. But in addition I think the practice of Islam becomes criminal behavior. We should outlaw any attempt to impose Islam on any non-Islamic polity. It is the ultimate, the final denial of the state by religion; it is a totalitarianism.

Ann , Ohio | 2004-08-24 05:15 | Link

Tell you what - the Islamics who survive, they can go ahead and invent a new Islam. Maybe with their numbers decimated, they will be smart enough to rethink their views. But until the back of Islam is broken, there will be no peace. Or perhaps you wish to endure years and years of being jerked around by Sadr types while Islam slowly devours our respective countries in the silent, insidious way cancer does. Cancer requires eradication and so does Islam. If those who practice it want to live they can thoroughly and convincingly renounce it and get to work inventing themselves a new, benign god.

That you can speak of islam as if it had the capacity to change, given it's history, is indicative of what you desperately want. It can not be anything you have witnessed on a large enough scale to justify your views. If small groups or brave women like the Muslim Refusenik would start multiplying like rabbits, more people would wish to be patient while they sorted their precious islam out. But those who speak are instantly targets and rare and to wait a couple more centuries until they get a clue is rather out of the question.
I personally don't care if Islamics rip each other to shreds in the name of their god in their own countries, behind their own borders. Their insistence that allah be my god is what makes them legitimate targets.

Sorry to inform you, but there is never an end to war, but, apparently history does little to convince some folks.

Mashiki , Canada | 2004-08-24 07:01 | Link

Intresting... I'm gone for a couple of days and I miss all the good stuff. Rune Kristian Viken, I got your e-mail I'll reply when I get a few spare mins. First let me say I'm suffering on a few hours of sleep, so I hope that this will make some sense.

Susan: The Jewish point is a good and fine one. I'd almost call it an endmic problem, I see it more so with Muslims of any type then with any group at all. It spreads, it breeds, it grows, it adapts. It has a house of common breeding which gives it a life of it's own. It is a serious problem.

The revisionist history problem is a very serious issue. It's lead to the destruction of countless and priceless artifacts in Israel, in Afganistan, in Iraq, in many other countries in the name of purifying the area from 'idol' worship. It gets far worse, when appologists use this in order to make the Muslims look not so bad. I've heard everything from they discovered Australia to they took over the New World and subjigated the people. That's why the natives fought against the settlers.

I hope by posting this, I haven't bent or broken any rules since I see that you've jumped on things a bit Bjorn. You asked why the Anti-Islamic feelings? Whole scale distruction of history, culture, revision. Non-Assimilation into ours. Not to mention that nasty extremist element that likes blowing stuff up, and strongly advocates child death as glorious. As well as 'death' as a glorious thing.

Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-08-24 11:04 | Link

"Yawn. Right on target, Oyvind shows up to villify "anti-Islamists" while ignoring the hateful, irrational garbage posted by Sal."

Regardless of your personal attacks I will answer this. Salahudin seems to me to be a typical representative of Islamism; whether he calls himself Islamist or not. I do not need to argue against Islamists - there are enough people doing that on this forum, and there's also quite a few in the Arab and Muslim world.

Furthermore I find the discussion between Salahudin and other people on this thread uninteresting and see no reason to take part in it, as it seems to me to be an awkward fight of the pavlovian kind. I consider some of Salahudins statements anti-Semitic, but then - on the other hand - some of the anti-Islamist statements in here are, in my mind, a result of a new kind of anti-Semitism.

What I try do to is to make people understand that when Islamism is a relatively new phenomenon in the Muslim world it should also be regarded as one, and one can not look at Islamism without considering its highly secular roots (this does not mean, however, that Islamism has no roots in the Islamic religion whatsoever. Islamist ideologues draw lines to theologians of the past although few of those theologians can be considered mainstream).

Susan: "of course those of Oyvind's ilk don't have any practical or intelligent solutons except to blame the West for anything that's wrong. That's been their modus operandi all along. The important thing is (to them), that no Western non-Muslim person ever say anything bad against Islam or Muslims. What Islam and Muslims say about US is of no concern to them"

I do not know who or what my ilk is, except a creation in your mind. However, I have suggested several solutions: First, we have start considering why Islamism has been on the rise, and why it - as it indeed was - was on the fall before 911. Then, we can start to consider what to do about it.

The answer for your first question is: Islamism is on the rise because it often is the only political alternative to corrupt regimes in the Arab and Muslim world. Islamism is also on the rise because the Wests initiatives for more democracy in these countries are seen as anything but truthful - no matter if they are truthful or not. Islamists live in our world, they see our world, and they react to our world - they even react quite rationally. Of course they are wrong, but that does not change the fact that Islamism is highly modern, and NOT fundamentalist, NOT orthodox and NOT represantive for mainstream Islam.

What to do? Well, first of all we have to make our initiatives believable. Abu Ghraib was a bad way of doing that. Supporting some Arab dictators against other Arab dictators does not help much. We have to actively support and push for more democracy in the entire Middle East, and at the same time remove as much as we can of the things that make it easy for Islamists to call us hypocratic.

In the end we also have to win Islamists over to our side - and this is actually already happening without us doing much. In Turkey they've got a ruling party with Islamist roots, that are perhaps more democratic than a government in that country have been for a very, very long time. Those Islamists are not enemies, Susan. Although they too all too often are mistaken.

Herbie:

I do not know Chomskys views on this question - and I do not consider terrorism something to applaud. Terrorists are, however, not irrational. To me that makes them even more scary!

Neither do I know Bermans book, but I will read him when I get the chance. Any analysis of Sayyid Qutb is destined to be chilling as far as I am concerned.

To fail to see Islamism in a socio-political perspective is just the same as failing to see Nazism or Communism in that perspective. Often, however, Islamism can be compared with Christian extremism, where the roots can be both socio-political and religious. The major difference is that Islamism has gained a power Christian extremism has not had for a very long time.

A revolution is on the way.

Bjørn Stærk | 2004-08-24 15:28 | Link

Mashiki: "I hope by posting this, I haven't bent or broken any rules since I see that you've jumped on things a bit Bjorn."

Nah. You write clearly, you're polite, and you stick to the issues. Write as much as you like.

Susan: Watch it. Both this comment, this comment, this comment and this one are dedicated almost entirely to mocking Øyvind, partly through cheap straw men ("those of Oyvinds ilk"), and partly through condescension ("It's just Oyvind"). I get the feeling you're trying to drive him away. So here's what I want you to do: If you really believe that this blog would be more interesting if Øyvind stopped writing here, then I want you to leave. If you decide to stay, you will treat him like the valuable contributor he is, (he's smart and he disagrees with you - what could be more valuable than that?), while of course tearing his arguments to shreds as much as you like.

Let me know what you decide.

Susan | 2004-08-24 18:13 | Link

Bjorn: I apologize.

However ,the gist of what I stated is undeniable. Oyvind has no comment on Sal's numerous racist references to Jews and his triumphalist claims for Islam, and only shows up to reiterate how we should all be careful not to criticize Islam (or "confuse" it with Islamism.)Then he disappears.

That speaks volumes to me.

Susan | 2004-08-24 18:18 | Link

"In Turkey they've got a ruling party with Islamist roots, that are perhaps more democratic than a government in that country have been for a very, very long time. Those Islamists are not enemies, Susan. Although they too all too often are mistaken. "

I think Sal's comments about what would happen to Europe when Turkey joins the EU, speak volumes also.

"You better BEHAVE, or ELSE!"

Really, Oyvind, you have no idea. No idea at all.

Susan | 2004-08-24 18:26 | Link

Oyvind, "Furthermore I find the discussion between Salahudin and other people on this thread uninteresting and see no reason to take part in it, as it seems to me to be an awkward fight of the pavlovian kind."

But isn't that what Bjorn was damning LGF and other anti-Islam commentators for? Not objecting to extremist statements by those on the same talkboard? Moreover, you are the one who is always nattering on about Islamist democracy: from my experience Sal speaks for a great many Muslims. It's "uninteresting" that many Muslims have views like Sal? You have a funny idea of what is interesting and what is not.

I think Sal's statements have opened quite a few eyes here, as some commentators have plainly stated. You think this is "uninteresting" (another word for "unimportant", perhaps?)

Frankly your posts here have an air of "pay no attention to what that man behind the curtain is doing, I am the Great and Powerful Oz."

Herbie, NY NY | 2004-08-24 18:36 | Link

Oyvind: you say "To fail to see Islamism in a socio-political perspective is just the same as failing to see Nazism or Communism in that perspective." I submit that you are flat wrong. Neither of those other ideologies appealed to a higher authority as a basis for conduct. Islamism, on the other hand, bases its entire rationale on a religious foundation. The closet you get to support for your argument is Pan-Arabist and its Marxist foundations which in turn died a bad death. Your arguments do appear to be a theory in search in search of facts. I, in turn, am more comfortable with first the facts and then see to what theory they may lead. In that regard I find that what people say is what they mean. What is said and what drives the facts are the various sermons as reported by MEMRI and the various OP Ed pieces in controlled and non-controlled press. In that regard I find little if any support for a soci-political foundation, but rather a religious foundation and a strong one at that. That said I do not mean to say that soci-political views are irrelevant -- to the contrary I would find them quite relevant but only under the religious umbrella. In short I think your argument puts the cart before the horse and it is the horse which drives the argument so to speak. On a separate note if you have not read Berman’s book I urge you to do so. He is wonderful writer and has important things to say

Rune Kristian Viken, Oslo | 2004-08-24 18:41 | Link

But isn't that what Bjorn was damning LGF and other anti-Islam commentators for? Not objecting to extremist statements by those on the same talkboard?

No, I don't think so. Bjørn was damning LGF and other anti-Islam commentators for not objecting to extremist statements from _their_ camp.

I don't know, but I don't think Øyvind is a muslim, and Salahudin is probably not in his ranks - thus it's not important for Øyvind to object against his statements - there are enough other of us that takes care of that job.

Susan | 2004-08-24 18:54 | Link

Rune: Nevertheless, he let it slide, with no comment at all.

As I said before, Sal's statements are like the bumbling old man working the controls behind the curtain, whereas Oyvind's statements are like the Great and Powerful Oz assuring us that we have no need to pay attention to what is going on behind the curtain.

If I express anger and sarcasm toward Oyvind, it's because his line is practically all I hear -- from the media, the academics, ordinary people in conversations -- everywhere except the Internet and the blogosphere, when it comes to Islam. "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain, he is of no consequence." Yet I know that the man behind the curtain is more real than the smoke and mirrors of Oz, the so-called "moderate" and "pluralistic" Islam that somewhere, somehow is going to emerge.

Susan | 2004-08-24 19:05 | Link

A moderate Islam, by the way, that is somehow, somewhere, going to emerge without any pressure or criticism applied to it whatsoever, because we who criticize it shouldn't ever, ever make the mistake that what is coming out of MEMRI is really representative of Islam.

As Ibn Warraq noted, if this much-hoped-for Islamic reformation is to come about, how will that happen if criticism of it - including very harsh criticism of the kind that Oyvind (and Bjorn) seem very uncomfortable with -- is banned?

A Swedish Observer | 2004-08-24 22:40 | Link

Øyvind,

Interesting point.

In my opinion you're both right and wrong.

Yes, satellite-based "Islamism" is a modern phenomenon. A kind of fascism (mirroring several European counterparts - especially German Romantic Idealism and National Socialism with its hatred of Liberal Democracy, Anglo-American capitalism and Jews). And yes, you will find Paul Berman quite readable.

But we have a problem here. The history of Islam has nearly ALWAYS been afflicted with some sort of totalitarianism; two of the most despotic states ever - the Ottoman Empire and Mughal India - were both products of Jihad and Islam (check S E Finer, "The History of Government, III, Empires, Monarchies and the Modern State", Oxford University Press, 1999). Ask any Greek, Armenian, Hindu, Buddhist...

Besides the outspoken discrimination prompted by the Sharia-law (women, non-Moslems, slaves), extreme intolerance and hatred of "infidels" can be traced back at least to Ibn Taimiyyah (1262-1329). Furthermore, the spiritual guide of terror and Apartheid-styled Islam of contemporary Saudi Arabia - Ibn Abd al-Wahab - lived in 18th century. Not in 1933.

A Swedish Observer | 2004-08-24 23:28 | Link

Øyvind,

Often, however, Islamism can be compared with Christian extremism, where the roots can be both socio-political and religious.

I find this comparison rather questionable - especially the religious part. Yes, Christian extremism and sectarianism has been a disturbing and often repulsive fact from late antiquity to this day. But Christianity is a pacifistic religion and Christ himself establish the separation between church and state in his famous lecture (Matthew 22:21). The early centuries of "pagan" oppression shaped a clerical hierarchy and a more or less autonomous organization - often in conflict with the profane authority (Pope versus Emperor!). The Renaissance, the war between Catholics and Protestants and the Enlightenment furthermore pawed the way for secularism, pluralism and - nota bene -freedom to change religion or belief. There is NO such separation or emancipation in Islam (and that's PRECISELY WHY Sayyid Qutb & heirs prefer their prophet). Mohammed was a politician, a warrior, a conqueror who demanded submission (= "Islam") - quite another kind of man (and role model) than the gentle peacenik Jesus.

Islam is evidently NOT an "ordinary" creed. It is still a wall-to-wall SYSTEM. (And by my definition a more or less harsh prison - especially for women, libertarians, atheists, artists and writers, anyone who wants to be treated as a grown up individual and not just like some kind of dumb milk-cow or pious robot.)

Christian extremism of today are definitely loathsome and narrow-minded. But it doesn't produce craters in Manhattan or public decapitations. It doesn't worship sacrificial death in sudden "battles" with civilian strangers. It doesn't spawn brainwashed kamikaze-children. Deadly Christian extremism dwells among crazed fringe groups (with some horrifying exceptions in Africa). Deadly Moslem extremism is global, official and unrestrainedly murderous. And it kills in the name of Allah.

Please, go to the sources. That's what the Islamic "revolutionaries" have done since the last Caliph left the building.

The differences are structural. It's about texts and mind-sets.

Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-08-24 23:30 | Link

Herbie:

Islamism refers to God. Nazi Soldiers wore belts saying "Gott mit uns" (God is with us). Even the president of the United States of America refer to God. Referring to God does not mean that you can take a political ideology away from its socio-political roots.

The roots of Islamism is - amongst other things - the failure of the very panarabism you mention, and while Islamism criticizes both panarabism and marxism it also includes concepts taken from both, and from other ideologies - including even liberal democratic thought. Those doubtful to these claims could check out literature like for instance Ervand Abrahamian: Khomeinism or Andrea Nüsse: The Ideology of Hamas or for that matter Francois Burgat: The Face of Political Islam.

Let me quote a bit from the latter of those three books:

'Can 'Islamism' only be characterised as a religious fundamentalists hostiole to democratic values and religious tolerance? Take any interview given, currently considered to be the most dangerous Islamist. A preliminary observation is that, although religious rhetoric is indeed pervasive, the demands and ambitions of this 'religious lunatic' are of a political rather than religious nature. 'The current price of oil [is the product] of a pressure exerted by the American administration on Saudi Arabia to keep the market flooded and keep prices low [...] In ten years, the USA has stolen several million dollars from Muslims' [...]

Islamic movements are all affected by a degree of specificity arising from their national circumstances. But they are also [...] the common product of an underlying historical dynamic. Much more than a hypothetical 'resurgence of the religious' it should be reiterated that Islamism is effectively the reincarnation of an older Arab nationalism, clother in imagery considered more indigenous'.

'This book hopes to underline the fact that, in reality, the attitude of Islamic movements toward 'modernity' is open to change and far from being monolithic. Its truly 'extremist' fringes have often succumbed to the easy temptation of being of indiscrimately rejecting the West's contribution to social and political order under the pretext that this contribution is a continuation of the West's 'imperialist' phase, even extending to the categories of its language. However, these fringes are a minority: the composition of the Islamist movement is considerably more complex'.

(Foreword, pages xiv-xvi)

Susan:

I try to relate to that complex reality mentioned above, and not to a debate of knocking more and less shocking examples in the head of ones opponent - like the technique of not only Salahudin but also several of his opponents seem to be. Furthermore I have these comments on Salahudins remarks:

1. That he makes triumphalist claims for Islam is not very surprising - religious people often have an idea that their religion will (and should) win.

2. I consider some of his statements anti-Semitic, something I have also commented on above with the exact same words. I am somewhat unsure what you think I meant by that, but what I mean is:

I consider them racist.

I do not however find it surprising that Salahudin makes anti-Jewish remarks, anti-Semitism is far more widespread in the Muslim world than jihadism or extreme Islamism - partly because also the panarab nationalists have profited upon it. I am not chocked by this, but I find it rather chilling - almost as chilling as when I see people in my own country wanting to ban religion(s), throw books on bonfires and refer to people like 'dogs' - things that I increasingly often see.

Besides these two comments I see no reason to comment on your posts whatsoever as they are more often than not built on solely petty personal attacks.

A Swedish Observer:

You are perfectly right about the Ottoman Empire, which indeed practiced something that could be called 'political Islam' and also was a - at times terribly so - suppressive regime.

However, I think you need to make a comparison with other regimes and leaders living at the same time. You could start by checking out the atrocities of a Romanian leader opposed to the Ottomans: Vlad Dracula. To judge Islam because of the bloody history of Muslim countries without considering the bloody history of Christian countries seems to me like the Mother of All Cherrypicking Techniques.

However, you do have an absolutely valid point when pointing to al-Wahhab. You could also refer to even earlier theologians. Islamism did not come out of a vacuum, and as I have mentioned: It can not be understood without ALSO understanding its Islamic roots. The fact remains, though: Islamism must be understood from a sociopolitical background. If it is not it will not be understood at all.

Oh, and by the way, write 'wahabism' at Google and you'll see that most of the sites that pop up are - indeed - Muslim.

Øyvind, Bergen

Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-08-24 23:50 | Link

Swedish observer:

Sorry, I managed to miss your reference to Ibn Taimiyya - he is one of the earlier theologians I also refer to. What I would like you to do is to give me an overview over opposition to Ibn Taymiyya at his own time and in modern time. I guarantee you - there's plenty of such opposition to find.

"Christian extremism of today are definitely loathsome and narrow-minded. But it doesn't produce craters in Manhattan"

But Timothy McVeigh had taken part in meetings within circles of Christian Identity, the Lords Revolutionary Army have practised suicide attacks (and capture children to use them as child soldiers) and so on. The LRA is perhaps what you refer to as 'a horrifying African example'. Using the technique of many here though I could claim that this is something that can only be understood because of something in Christianity ('this is the true face of Christianity') and not because of sociopolitical reasons.

You do make a valid a point when making a comparison of Jesus and Mohammad, the first was a spiritual leader, the second was also a military and secular leader.

The problem is that - whatever you think the 'original' religion might be - Islam is still not a religion of societies where there has been no division between Church and State and Christianity is still not a pacifist religion. To draw those conclusions one will have to read history with one eye closed. Christianity have plenty of its own Ibn Taimiyyas.

Øyvind, Bergen

Susan | 2004-08-25 00:23 | Link

Oyvind,

"Besides these two comments I see no reason to comment on your posts whatsoever as they are more often than not built on solely petty personal attacks."

Nice way of deflecting the comments, but not really an answer to any of the points I raised. I would still like to know: why show up and immediately start attacking Sak's debating opponents, while not saying anything about Sal's remarks at all? If we are at war with "Islamism" which you seem to believe in, not "Islam", what is the point of attacking one participant on one side of a debate and not the other? Even if that was not your intent, that is in effect what you have accomplished: "Don't look at extremist Sal over there, listen to me, the all-knowing one, Sal doesn't represent Islam at all." Frankly I think that Sal represents Islam far more than you do.

Moreover, trying to weasel out of it by referring to personal attacks from me isn't going to cut it. I apologized -- you never apologized for putting words in my mouth on another thread and trying to depict me as a right-wing Christian "wacko" who supports blasphemy laws.

I find it distressing that the all-too-common Western "intellectual" approach to the war that Islam has made on us is that we should look to the mote in our own eyes while ignoring the beam in someone else's.

Your continued use of moral relativism shows where you are coming from extremely well, whether you would admit it or not. What is the message here: "We can't criticize Islam as it is todaybecause Christians did something bad 500 years ago!" That is no different from anything that Sal would post, or indeed, the tens of millions of Sal clonese that are out there.

Sandy P | 2004-08-25 00:33 | Link

Still waiting for the moderates, via LGF:

The Salafi Society of North America (with an address in Richmond Hill, New York) would like to set the record straight. And they should know. “Salafi” is another word for “Wahhabi.”

...Our real struggle with the Jews will not end by setting up a withered state that doesn’t raise the banner of Islaam nor establishes the Laws of Allaah. How can it come to an end when the Muslim recites in his prayer seventeen times - day and night — “And do not make us from those who gained Your Anger nor from those who went astray.” [Surah Al-Faatihah: 7]

Those who “gained Your Anger” are the Jews and those who “went astray” are the Christians, according to the unanimous agreement of the Tafseer scholars, and this is so until the Day of Judgement....

Jorge, Venezuelan immigrant to USA | 2004-08-25 02:27 | Link

Thank you so much for presenting this forum of expression. The Islamist Sal almost makes me want to contribute to this "LGF" whatever it is.
One can never know the extent of hatred generated by religion, until the hateful ones speak out.
As for hatred against Islam, you should understand by now that the moderate muslims cannot stop the immoderate ones, and perhaps most do not wish to stop them.
You know, Europeans are not producing many offspring compared to the muslim immigrants among you. Time itself will solve the problem for Europe. Soon, pulicly expressing hatred toward Islam in Europe will have serious penalties.

Susan | 2004-08-25 03:20 | Link

Jorge,

"Soon, pulicly expressing hatred toward Islam in Europe will have serious penalties."

It is already a crime to express hatred toward Islam in Europe. Several have been tried in France and the UK; one British man got into trouble for arguing with a Muslim neighbor after 9-11 and received a one year penalty for it.

Meanwhile, Muslims in Europe are allowed to express vile anti-Semitic and anti-kufaar hatred at the drop of a hat and they are _rarely_ prosecuted.

What really you mean is, soon it will be an _even_greater_ crime to express hatred against Islam in Europe than it already is today.

Totoro, U.S. | 2004-08-25 04:38 | Link

Susan . . .

You said: "I find it distressing that the all-too-common Western "intellectual" approach to the war that Islam has made on us is that we should look to the mote in our own eyes while ignoring the beam in someone else's."

I think this cuts to the heart of the matter. Sometimes one can overintellectualize a problem while missing the big picture.

Are all Muslims determined to destroy Western civilization? Common sense would have to say, "Of course not." But a determined minority is organized to do so, and they have billions of dollars and several governments at their disposal. That is the reality that cannot be talked away.

James PA., USA | 2004-08-25 04:55 | Link

Totoro asks:

"Are all Muslims determined to destroy Western civilization? Common sense would have to say, "Of course not." "

For Muhammad the ummah is incomplete until the entire world submits to Allah's will. Muslims are enjoined to bring this subjugation about as a matter of faith. The "peace" of Islam is manifest with the conquest of the world of war, i.e. the non-Muslim world.

The true genius of Islam is that it attempts to eliminate group differences by universalizing the group, the ummah.

The message is simple : "Submit or die."

So, yes, Totoro, Muslims are determined to destroy Western civilization. Allah's Will be done.

A Swedish Observer | 2004-08-25 07:02 | Link

Øyvind,

1. The Arabs were once invaders in the Middle East, in North Africa, Southern Europe, Persia, Central Asia and so on. They didn't ask the East Romans or the Sassanids about permission. The just took it all (i. e. the cradle of civilization). Today Salahudin and his friends claim sole right.

2. The Ottomans were invaders with an extremely frightening war machine. Bit by bit they conquered Asia Minor, the Balkan Peninsula, right up to the gates of Vienna. Their methods were extraordinarily brutal. Their practice of devshirme (collecting young boys for military or administrative service) was a menace for the original Christian inhabitants for centuries (i. e. in their OWN ancestral lands including Wallachia).

I know lots of things about Ottoman Constantinople - the multiethnic blend, the French renegades, the possibilities to make a fine carrier etc. etc. But these acts of "tolerance" were not just based on Dhimma or some romantic echoes of old Roman-Hellenistic "openness" but also on shrewd calculations in an age of new technology and western development. (As Saddam Hussein or the contemporary Jihadists the Ottomans needed all sorts of weapons but lacked the scientifically knowledge to produce them.)

3. Further East the founders of the Mughal dynasty used an equally brutal force in their pursuit for the treasures of India. They came to ancient kingdoms and lands which belonged to OTHER peoples. Did Babur ask for permission? Of course not.

---

Why do I mention this?

Because we are now witnessing not only a new war between the West and militant Islam but also a battle over the future of our own history and memory. Broad segments of our society have already lined up behind the anti-western party (ultra rapid in post 9/11 Europe).

I'm not afraid of the truth. I can admit and confess horrific European - or American - crimes here and there and everywhere. I've done it for decades: in school, at my university, at my work, with my friends. I've seen it with my own eyes. This is part of our therapeutic - and actually Christian or western - culture.

But what the h-ll is the problem with our neighbors?

Islam was - and is - one of the most aggressive imperialisms in history of man. It's a fact. Just take a look on the map. Yet we NEVER hear or see ANY kind of Moslem explanation or regret. On the contrary we only face more hatred, lies and distortion.

Old Jihad is alive and doing well in Philippines, Thailand, Kashmir, Middle East, Sudan, Nigeria, Spain - even in tiny Sweden... But our own "elite" is only able to parroting late Edward W. Said 24/7 about ugly expansionism and western imperialism (which by the way in several cases was a RESPONSE to and a CONSEQUENCE of Moslem aggression, slave trade and piracy).

THAT is "cherry-picking".

THAT is "to read history with one eye closed".

---

Nearly 1400 years after Mohammed there are still traces - buildings, influences and "minorities" - over a vast area now called "the Muslim World".

What about their circumstances? What about their future? In Iraq? In Turkey? In Iran? In Egypt? What kind of tolerance do we see?

Do we se an equivalent to our own society?

No we don't.

Why Øyvind?

Sandy P | 2004-08-25 08:58 | Link

I could be really snarky and say since quite a few of them long for 700 AD, they can confine themselves to the world as they knew it existed back then.

The US is off-limits. Well, except for those muslims who came to the US before Columbus and converted the Indians.

Oh, same w/Australia.

Sandy P | 2004-08-25 08:59 | Link

umm, Oyvind:

--But Timothy McVeigh had taken part in meetings within circles of Christian Identity,--

Ever hear of Jayna Davis and Laurie Mylroie?

They have some interesting theories about Tim.

Sandy P | 2004-08-25 09:04 | Link

Little Green Footballs, Jorge - and welcome. Hope you got your family out. Are you a recent arrival, possibly into FLA?

One old commie's dying and another with delusions of grandeur is rising.

And this time it's going to work because Hugo has a plan. Right.

ØYvind, Bergen | 2004-08-25 10:01 | Link

Swedish Observer:

"Why Øyvind?"

Why? Well, because of historical and sociopolitical circumstances. You will not find too many Buddhist democracies either, but that does not mean Buddhism is antidemocratic.

(Your point about Muslims taking honour for things they do not have the honour for and for things that are truly not that honorable is a valid one, early Islam was expansionist and later on Islamic empires were expansionist too. However, one might claim that the Spaniards and the Brits were slightly more imperialist)

Sandy: "Ever hear of Jayna Davis and Laurie Mylroie?", Yes, I have. Well, interesting is for sure. Theories is also for sure. Smells somewhat like conspiracy theories to me, but it's nice to explain all terrorism as Islamic isn't it?

(then on the other side - if you've read interviews with Islamists they sometimes agree with the extremist on the American Christian right, and they even SAY they do so)

Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-08-25 10:04 | Link

Oh, and when India is regarded, later another huge empire claimed India as its own. Britain. While the author of 'Why I am not a Muslim' portrays that as a good thing (as opposed to Muslim expansion) I get a feeling that it's back to cherrypicking again.

Empires has been growing and falling and not asking anybody for allowance since ancient times. Some of those empires happen to be Islamic. The first 'gathering' of India, though, was - if I am not mistaken - a Buddhist empires work.

Herbie NY, NY | 2004-08-25 15:13 | Link

I think that Swedish Observer has the much better of the argument with Oyvind. I must say that it s a pleasure to read a lucid, logical progression of an argument without so many of the typical hype and snide comments that invariably creep into various postings. If you are ever in NYC it would be my pleasure to buy you dinner.

Oyvind: I stand by my view that your reliance on soci-political foundations (which you really never define) is a theory in search of factual support. You do seem to ignore facts that do not support or callinto Q your analysis rather then attempting to modify your analysis. Many of your analogies are not on point. The most glaring is that of Buddhism and democracy. The critical distinction is that it does not seek to impose its views on other people.

James PA.,USA | 2004-08-25 16:13 | Link

Oyvind,

Christian mission under the Spanish, Russians, English, etc., was often an ingredient and motivation for empire, but unlike Islam it was not a basis for the genocide of unconverted infidels as it usually has been in Islam. Darfur with its relaxed Muslims and Southern Sudan with its Christian animists, and the massacres in East Timor are modern day examples of the kind of treatment one can expect from Muslim expansionism.

Christianity preaches personal salvation, and as such it did not attempt to enforce universal group conformity even in an imperial mood. I am no fan of any monotheism or religion, but Christianity's explicit emphasis upon individual perfection allowed for the separation of church and state which Islam cannot tolerate.

Islam can never relax its purpose which is single minded obsession with the subjugation of all mankind to Muhammad's vision of Allah's Will. Islam is a war against all those who do not believe, not the rescue of the souls from their expired bodies.

I don't know about you, but if I have to choose among empires I'll choose the one that doesn't wish to enslave me in the name of God's commune; I prefer to fight for my freedom from men one can reason with as opposed to those who assert that all fate is God's will.

A Swedish Observer | 2004-08-25 17:40 | Link

Øyvind,

Why? Well, because of historical and sociopolitical circumstances.

No. Because of another PERCEPTION (with the name Islam = "submission").

/.../

Yes. Sure. But did you read my earlier post? We westerners admit and confess EVERY DAY - in media, politics, universities etc. (and I'm personally very proud of this intellectual and dialogical openness). Dar al Islam doesn't. It always seems to blame someone else.

Islam is a ONE-WAY STREET.

Empires has been growing and falling and not asking anybody for allowance since ancient times.

Absolutely true. But that wasn't my point. Because I'm talking first and foremost about writing history NOW AND HERE.

Read my earlier posts. Go to a Moslem country. Read Islamic web-sites. Listen to an "ordinary" Moslem sermon in Sweden ("Dubbla budskap i moskén" - "Double message in the mosque", Svenska Dagbladet, 23/5-04).

Of course this is a clash of civilizations (or if you prefer of civilization and barbarism).

Some of those empires happen to be Islamic.

"Happen?" They were inspired by a very distinct doctrine: JIHAD.

The first 'gathering' of India, though, was - if I am not mistaken - a Buddhist empires work.

Sure. But King Ashoka the Great (272-232 B.C.E) wasn't practicing Sharia. And Buddhism has never been involved in some kind of totalitarian world war - neither a global Faurisson-styled revisionism.

Actually Buddhism is the opposite of Islam and its Machiavellian WILL TO POWER.

You will not find too many Buddhist democracies either, but that does not mean Buddhism is antidemocratic.

Well then, mentioning democracy, can Islam be truly democratic?

I don't think so.

Democracy - or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html] - is not compatible with Sharia, neither with the Dhimmi-concept or some sort of Jihadi warfare (in Philippines, Thailand, Kashmir, Middle East, Sudan, Nigeria, Spain etc. ).

So, what exactly will be left?

A new religion?

Ali Dashti | 2004-08-25 18:19 | Link

Allah wants human sacrifices:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/002960.php

“The blood of our husbands and the body parts of our children are our sacrificial offering.”[/URL]

http://www.sindbad.se/phpBB2/index.php

A Swedish Muslim forum well worth visiting.

Herbie NY | 2004-08-25 19:04 | Link

I submit the topic might be changed to the followiong Qs. It seems to me that there are really two Questions: a) can the West and its values ever engage in a meaningful dialogue with Islam -- as it is currently formulated (religous or soci-political)-- or would that just be a "Hudna" peace and b) if it can, how to do so?

halldor, London, UK | 2004-08-25 20:30 | Link

Why is everything now in italics? AFAICS it seems to start with this post:

Rune Kristian Viken, Oslo | 2004-08-22 11:39 | Link

Rune Kristian Viken, Oslo | 2004-08-25 22:36 | Link

halldor: on that technical point, I don't think it was my posting, but one of 'the swedish observer' 's that had a missing closing tag, but I'm sure Bjørn can tell us which one it was now after removing the problem. :)

Anyways, a very interesting exchange between Øyvind and ASO .. I hope they'll continue it.

Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-08-26 14:12 | Link

Swedish Observer:

"Well then, mentioning democracy, can Islam be truly democratic? I don't think so."

Well, there's an interesting debate concerning that theme to be found here. Also the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy might be worth checking out

As a matter of fact there are already countries in the world that are both Muslim and democratic, at least democratic to the same degree as their non-Islamic neighbours.

It seems to me as you are using a different set of rules on empires that were Islamic than on other empires. When talking about Islamic empires you seem to be eager to "explain" them with Islam and simplified exegesis of Islamic concepts, when talking about other empires this rule does suddenly not apply anymore. When talking about the lack of democracy in Muslim countries that is because of Islam, but the lack of democracy in Buddhist countries of course does not mean that Buddhism is antidemocratic? Or does it?

Let me quote once more from Burgat: 'Face to face with political Islam':

'Since millions of 'Muslim' individuals are less accessible to observation to observation than the verses of their doctrine, geographic and linguistic barriers continue to encourage a tendency in Western observers to overemphasise the factor of religion. The exegesis of the Qu'ran thus often replaces socio-economic and socio-historical investigation, which would by itself explain the attitudes of each of these individuals in determined political contexts. It is easier to study one eternal and intangible Islam than all the thousands of interpretations. This reveals an evident drift that rightfully continues to be condemned. The suras of the Quran and the spiritual leaders of radical Islamism, Ibn Taymiyya (1236-1326) and Sayeed Qutb (1906-66) - or those of other real or supposed doctrinal credos of some or all Muslims - are charged with explaining a terrain that can only be grasped through the innumerable parameters of political sociology'.

I think this is a rather good description of the basic views not only of Western media and some Western researchers, but also of many of the anti-Islamists frequenting different blogs.

Furthermore, I think it describes your approach to Islamism quite appropriately. What you do is to overemphasise the factor of religion, and using merely religion you - and your supporters here to an ever higher digree - try to explain a terrain that cannot be explained without considering numerous socio-political factors. These factors are also the reasons that Islamism varies greatly from country to country - the Islamism in contemporary Iraq is not the same as the one in Libya or the one in Tunisia.

Your approach to the history of the Mughal Empire or the Ottoman Empire, both driven more by economic and political motivations than by religious so, is to read history with one eye closed. However, you are of course not the only one doing this. Many in the Muslim world also read history with one eye closed and some Islamists close them both.

In the Middle East region there's few democratic states. Israel is one, but being a dominantly Jewish state it is not relevant in this discussion. Lebanon is on the way to democracy, Yemen is also taking steps. Turkey is democratic to a certain degree. The 'modernist' generals who ruled secular countries like Algeria, Egypt and Tunisia has not achieved anything like a credible change in leadership through the ballot box. There is, however, one land in the Middle East that has witnessed something like this; I am talking, of course about president Khatamis election victory in the 'theocratic dictatorship' of Iran.

Others, however, like the Tunisian Islamist leader (!) Rached Ghannouchi articulates a different vision. The central question form him is how to free the Muslim community from backwardness and dependence of the "other". Ghannouchi says that reconciling Islam and modernity involves introduction of democracy and freedom, both of which in his opinion are consistent with Islamic principles.

Those fighting for democracy in the Muslim world might find an ally there. Those only wishing to fight Islam will not.

Øyvind

Susan | 2004-08-26 15:50 | Link

"There is, however, one land in the Middle East that has witnessed something like this; I am talking, of course about president Khatamis election victory in the 'theocratic dictatorship' of Iran."

Khatami has no power His election was accompanied by a pogrom -- sponsored by the real ruler of Iran, Khamanei -- that murdered dozens of secural and reformist Iranians who were suspected of being Khatami allies, including the Fourouhars. Presenting Khatami's election as an example of Islamic democracy is nuts. Since then the Khamanei government has purged most reformers from the Majlis and local governments.

On the contrary, the situation in Iran merely shows that in a contest between secular democracy and Islamic theocracy, theocracy has once again won out.

AS many as 80 writers, dissidents, political figures were killed in the 1998 pogroms, with the Forouhars being the most prominent:

http://www.payk.net/mailingLists/iran-news/html/2001/msg00002.html

Susan | 2004-08-26 16:12 | Link

Also, why put sneer quotes around the term "theocratic dictatorship" Oyvind? That's what Iran is. Any legislation passed by the Majlis has to conform with Islamic law, or it's thrown out.

Herbie NY | 2004-08-26 16:52 | Link

As regards Burgat, a reviewer on Amazon had this to say about his views:

"This account obviously goes against the two main conventional explanations for political Islam: * * *. Against those like Bernard Lewis, who would argue that political Islam springs directly from the texts and laws of the religion, Burgat makes the case that Islamist individuals have themselves created political Islam, to serve social needs, rather than Islam creating them. * * *
But what is the actual nature of the "authentic" Muslim identity that is in crisis? Burgat never really offers a concrete definition of its content* * * * Thus, the categories are not defined, and the content seems unimportant for Burgat. It doesn't even matter if it's real. * * *

But not only does this "precious symbolic continuity" have a rather utopian quality to it, but we are not sure of the actual benefits of the reconciliation. What is gained? Dignity? Is this some kind of psychic therapy? One answer is offered by one of the Islamists that Burgat interviews, who, while undergoing a personal transformation from socialist to Islamist in Egypt, realized that "if I feel tied to these people in many ways, that must mean we share a common culture, and this culture should be infinitely more respected than it is at the moment [under Nasser]" (41). Acting on this feeling of tied-ness is presumably what Burgat means by reconciliation (one shudders to imagine a rational choice scholar attempting to calculate a utility function based on "symbolic continuity" and reconciliation with intuitive cultural categories!).
* * *
Burgat's explanation is that after taking power, Islamism would lose its utopian quality (the ideological shine that comes from being in opposition), and would be forced to adapt to social reality. Thus, political Islam might just be like socialism and secular nationalism, another passing political fad."

In short, it would appear that the argument is that perhaps in the future when Islam is ascendant it will become "civilized" with its dealing with Infidels. Of course if Oy is wrong then what? Sonme secular historian will be able to write for "a history of the tragedy of the destruction Western values see footnote 176 supra."

Herbie NY | 2004-08-26 17:18 | Link

The Q is not who is right in their analysis of what the motivation is in Islam. In many ways the argument, if premised on that Q, is a discussion that is fine for the halls of academia but for little else. The critical Q is can the West and Islam engage and, if so how. I have yet to hear a cogent critique of how one engages with Islam in its current state. At bottom, unless one can engage, the only alternatives are fight or die and all of these other arguments are of little importance. In its current state Islam does not accept an equal status and demands a superior status. The West accepts an equal status but, if it is to survive cannot accept an inferior status and all that it implies under Islam. Unless this issue is addressed all of the debates seem meaningless to me.

Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-08-26 18:48 | Link

Susan:

I can partly agree with you in calling Iran a theocratic dictatorship. However, using this name does not give an entirely accurate picture of the country, and I therefore chose to use those '-marks.

If we, instead of thinking of democracy as an on/off-thing, think of it on a scale there is no doubt that Iran in some ways are more democratic than several of the secular-ruled countries in the area. There's also no doubt that Khatami won an election that was fair enough to let him win, and that this did, in fact, constitute a political change. Disregarding this is to disregard reality.

The reactionaries in Iran has struck back at that policy change, defending their own interests and partly using foreign pressure against Iran as a tool in the process. The last election was couped completely by denying many moderate and reformist candidates the right to run. This did, however, not go unnoticed in the Iranian society, not even amongst the clerics, some of whom supported the moderates and reformists and not the conservative leadership. Iran is an odd construction indeed, something very obvious in the book "Khomeinism" by Ervand Abrahamian that I have already recommended. Although not up-to-date this book gives an interesting insight in the multifaceted political reality of Iran.

My point with the example of Khatamis election victory is not to portrait Iran as a lighthouse for hope in the Middle East. It is not. And it will only become that if the country experiences major political change. My point is that the very election victory of Khatami proves that reality is much more complex than some of the contributors here give an impression of.

In the Muslim world this is an obvious fact. Many Muslims can easily get the impression that it is - in fact - the Islamists who fight for democracy while secularist, Western-supported governments fight against it. Sometimes, sadly, they even have a point.

One Muslim I discussed this with called Islamism the 'evil twin brother' of Islamic modernism (in the narrow sense of the word), and while this is also lacking some nuance he does have a point. Both Islamism and Islamic modernism does for instance call for the reopening of the gates of 'ijtihad'. This, my dear friends, is not 'orthodox', nor 'fundamentalist'.

Herbie:

I do hope that you have the time and energy to read Burgats book instead of merely disregarding it pointing at a review at Amazon. While I do not agree with Burgat in everything I do think he has several good points, and he certainly has a strong basis for what he is saying. One of his best points, in my opinion, is that:

'Every time that parliament has been made a real arena for political activity (in Jordan, Yemen, Lebanon, Kuwait etc) all opposition groups, including Islamists, have reinserted themselves into the system without any major upheavals'

While I would add that some groups retain violence as their tactic anyway (as seen in several of those countries), Burgat absolutely points his finger at something important. In my opinion much of the Islamist violence in the Muslim world can be explained like our very own 'Norwegian' mullah, Krekar, did it (quoted from memory, not always that accurate):

'The socialists have guns. The socialdemocrats have guns. Of course, the Islamists too have guns'

Violence is very much a part of the political culture in the Middle East, and it has been that regardless of whether it is Communists, Arabists or Islamists who are fighting for their belief. Burgat says: 'The violence of the opposition in many respects reflects the violence inherent to the ongoing dynamic of domination which characterises the political field as a whole'

It is entirely possible to overemphasize historical comparisons between Islamism and for instance revolutionary socialism, but still there are clear socio-political and historical parallels between the two. However I think that the reviewer of Burgat is being highly unfair.

For those who are interested in seeing the thoughts of the 'other' Islamists (i.e. not al-Qa'ida) Rached Ghannouchi amongst others may be worth checking out.

As a matter of fact the development of Islamism in Tunisia is - together with the development in Turkey - particularly interesting.

Øyvind

Herbie NY, NY | 2004-08-26 19:16 | Link

Oyvind: You say quote "'Every time that parliament has been made a real arena for political activity (in Jordan, Yemen, Lebanon, Kuwait etc) all opposition groups, including Islamists, have reinserted themselves into the system without any major upheavals' If this is the major point of the book, all it seems to establish is that rules may be imposed under a stong enough government and groups limited. You cannot be serious in pointing to Yemen and Lebanon as examples. That really is Kafka like. He makes not points so far as I can see if these are his examples. He has co-authored books with Espositio: one of the most idiotic Islamic apologists who teaches at Georgetown and is most notable for saying that there is no cause for concern about terrorist activity before 9/11 and that such concerns are "racist". I agree Biurgat supports your point of view; but I myself prefer Bernard Lewis

Herbie, New York | 2004-08-26 19:54 | Link

Having a momnment I did a short web search concerning Burgat. Here is what he has to say about the slaughter in Algeria "I always denounced the awfully simplifying representation that the Algerian mode managed to impose in the Western opinion, by locking up the visibility of the Algerian political scene in the opinion of its two extremes, the RCD (left laic anti islamist) and the GIA (Islamic Group armed, to which it majority of slaughters are allotted). These two extremes are the two faces of the conjunction of interests of the mode: the GIA is necessary to the RCD and the RCD is necessary to the GIA and both are essential with the mode. However both have a social anchoring in the country of an extreme brittleness. All shows that they could not resist the free expression of a popular poll, and for this reason they are invaluable with the mode: they constitute the party of the refusal of the ballot boxes." http://www.algeria-watch.de/farticle/Burgat4.htm

This idiocy passes for intellectual rigor and is divorced from reality. What it reminds me of is the story
French Intellectuals to be Deployed in Afghanistan to Convince Taliban
> of Non-Existence of God
>
>
"Kabul---The clean-up portion of the ground war in Afghanistan heated up yesterday when the Allies revealed plans to airdrop a platoon of
crack French existentialist philosophers into the country to destroy the morale of the remaining Taliban zealots by proving the non-existence of God.

"Elements from the feared Jean-Paul Sartre Brigade, or 'Black Berets', will be parachuted into the combat zones to spread doubt, despondency and existential anomie among the enemy. Hardened by numerous intellectual
battles fought during their long occupation of Paris's Left Bank, their first action will be to establish a number of sidewalk cafes at strategic points near the front lines. There they will drink coffee and talk animatedly about the absurd nature of life and man's lonely
isolation in the universe.

"They will be accompanied by a number of heartbreakingly beautiful girlfriends who will propagate fear, uncertainty and doubt by looking
remote and unattainable.

"Their leader, Colonel Marc-Ange Belmondo, spoke yesterday of his confidence in the success of their mission. Sorbonne graduate Belmondo, a very intense and unshaven young man in a black pullover, gesticulated wildly and said, "The Taliban are caught in a logical fallacy of the most ridiculous proportions. There is no God and I can prove it."

"Marc-Ange plans to deliver an impassioned thesis on man's inescapable lack of freedom of action, with special reference to the work of
Foucault and the films of Alfred Hitchcock.

"Humanitarian agencies, however, have been quick to condemn the operation as inhumane, pointing out that the effects of passive smoke from the Frenchmen's' endless Galois's and Gitanes could wreak a terrible toll on civilians in the area."

Herbie, NY NY | 2004-08-26 20:02 | Link

OYVIND:

I found an even better critque of Burgat. I cannot resist:

Walking through a rough part of the city one night, two social workers heard moans and groans and muted cries for help coming from an alley. Walking toward the sound, they found a semi-conscious man.

"Help me!" he said weakly. "I've been mugged and viciously beaten!"

The two social workers stared at him for a moment then walked back out of the alley.

One turned to the other and said, "You know, the person who did that really could use some help!"
:-)

A Swedish Observer | 2004-08-26 20:22 | Link

Øyvind,

Thanks for your reply + the links.

When talking about Islamic empires you seem to be eager to "explain" them with Islam and simplified exegesis of Islamic concepts, when talking about other empires this rule does suddenly not apply anymore.

No. You're wrong. I'm NOT a defender of imperialism (although I prefer British common law above Moslem Sharia). As I mentioned in my earlier posts we westerners ADMIT, CONFESS and DISCUSS our historical actions and crimes EVERYDAY (even if I'm a Swede myself with no extensive colonial guilt). Furthermore Islam is an indisputable WORLD ORDER (with trillions of laws, methods and regulations) - not just some "spiritual" creed. That is the core of Mohammed's message and that is what history tells us. The very RECORDS, ACTIONS and PRACTISE of Islam are more important signs than any apologetic "explanations" of an appeasement-minded western environment. If the Qu'ran recommends genocide and ethnic cleansing, if the believer (a Gazi-warrior, a Sultan, your neighbor) believes it - and is eager to catch the ball - then we have a huge problem. Haven't we?

When talking about the lack of democracy in Muslim countries that is because of Islam, but the lack of democracy in Buddhist countries of course does not mean that Buddhism is antidemocratic? Or does it?

Every horse is a mammal. Ergo - every mammal is a horse. As I told you the explanations of Paul Berman and others are not wrong. On the contrary they seems to be VERY plausible. But the comparison with Buddhism is lame. Islam - and exclusively Sharia law - is per definition undemocratic. Buddhism is not (neither Hinayana, Mahayana or Zen).

The Bodhisattva-inspired personality is not Mohammed's cup of tea (or should a say coffee).

The exegesis of the Qu'ran thus often replaces socio-economic and socio-historical investigation, which would by itself explain the attitudes of each of these individuals in determined political contexts. It is easier to study one eternal and intangible Islam than all the thousands of interpretations.

Yes. Right. (For example tribal organization, family loyalties and cousin marriage in the Middle East.)

But the Qu'ran is still there.

Is it the complete revelation of god - or just a book among other books?

You can't have it both ways.

Have you seen the imperial mosques in Istanbul? They say it all. The Ottomans were pious people. Not Scandinavian social democrats.

In the Middle East region there's few democratic states. /.../ Lebanon is on the way to democracy...

"On the way"? But what about the Syrian occupation? And what about all the Christian refugees scattered around the world? When will they return?

Turkey is democratic to a certain degree.

Definitely. But where have all the old "millets" gone? The Greeks? The Armenians? Sadly enough, their ancestral home is no longer theirs (remember that the anti-Christian cleansing was an atrocity of the 20th century). Will their children and grandchildren go back to their villages, their houses and their millennium-old churches? Probably not.

There is, however, one land in the Middle East that has witnessed something like this; I am talking, of course about president Khatamis election victory in the 'theocratic dictatorship' of Iran.

Sorry, but THIS is ridiculous. It's like the old tales about "a socialism with a human face". The future will tell you the truth about "president" Khatami. Otherwise you can ask some Iranian refugee in Oslo.

The real world is far more complex than the mythical jihadist Islam conjured up by the anti-Islamists. Myths will not help us defeat extreme Islamism, in fact myths only help them, because they too speak of a clash of civilization and barbarism...

True. I'm not a friend of Manichean cosmology (and that is precisely why I'm not I supporter of Mohammed's war against infidels - or any other religious inspired supremacy, including Christian extremism). But in my opinion we surely have lots of myth-makers in our own midst.

The clash of civilizations is already here. Either you talk about it or not.

kjell | 2004-08-26 20:25 | Link

I have actually visited a number of Islamic countries, and one buddhist nation. None of those Islamic countries were places I would like to live in - sadly enough. Tunisia may be the only one, but it is a police state- something like Spain under Franco. Maybe being in a police state is a price to pay to avoid islamism.
Thailand on the other hand- not too democratic, and undeniably corrupt- but Buddhist, with It's many faults is a place one can live in.
For one reason or another.

Sandy P | 2004-08-27 01:25 | Link

--There's also no doubt that Khatami won an election that was fair enough to let him win, and that this did, in fact, constitute a political change. Disregarding this is to disregard reality.--

Unfortunately, his voters don't think so. Whoopie, they voted for change and the black turbans put the kabosh to it.

They hung a 16 y.o. girl a couple of days ago, btw.

Susan | 2004-08-27 01:53 | Link

From reading Iranian political boards, it seems to me that most Iranians hate Khatami now more than they hate Khamanei. For holding out the promise of change, and then taking it away.

Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-08-27 11:33 | Link

"If the Qu'ran recommends genocide and ethnic cleansing, if the believer (a Gazi-warrior, a Sultan, your neighbor) believes it - and is eager to catch the ball - then we have a huge problem. Haven't we?"

1. Yes, if the Qu'ran did in fact prescribe these things and believers indeed did believe all of them we would have a problem. The thing is that few others than rabid anti-Islamists and extreme Islamists believe that the Qu'ran actually is saying this and few sultans or neighbours of mine agree with them.

2. I have never referred to Iran as anything 'with a human face', my point is only that the reality is far more complex and that Islamism by itself is not more undemocratic than the ideas it has been competing with in the Muslim world, regardless of these being secular and at times even anti-religious. To conclude this from my comment above is preposterous.

3. Sure, your interpretation of the Qu'ran and of sharia says that Islam and democracy are incompatible. And your interpretation of Buddhism says that Buddhism is not anti-democratic. Now, that does not necessarily mean your interpretation is the only one - and it isn't. Muslims - even Islamists - want to combine democracy and Islam, and that's a part of the world out there I feel like you are desperately trying to overlook.

4. Sharia is not ONE thing. It has never been ONE thing. It will never be ONE thing. Sharia changes, has changed and will continue to change. To say that sharia is anti-democratic is the same as saying that Christian law per definition is anti-democratic. It is untrue.

Susan:

'From reading Iranian political boards, it seems to me that most Iranians hate Khatami now more than they hate Khamanei. For holding out the promise of change, and then taking it away'

That might be the truth, yes. Let's agree on one thing at least: Let's hope for a revolution in Iran.

Øyvind

Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-08-27 11:45 | Link

"I agree Biurgat supports your point of view; but I myself prefer Bernard Lewis"

Of course you do. Don't we all have a tendency to agree with those writers we already have agreed with?

Bernard Lewis, however, although he has given us the idea of 'clash of civilizations' states it in a somewhat more reflected way than many of the posters here:

"It should by now be clear that we are facing a mood and a movement far transcending the level of issues and policies and the governments that pursue them. This is no less than a clash of civilizations – the perhaps irrational but surely HISTORIC reaction of an ancient rival against our Judeo-Christian heritage, our secular present, and the worldwide expansion of both"

Now, while I totally disagree with Lewis, although he is a brilliant writer, he does add one point: He calls the upcoming (or according to some) 'clash of civilizations' a 'perhaps' irrational, but 'surely historic' reaction. That is not the same as: 'They read it in the Qu'ran. They're coming to get us now! Aaaargh!!!' (basically the view of quite a few LGF-ers and posters here)

The greatest problem with the idea of the 'clash of civilizations' is of course that no separate civilizations actually exist. This is not a computer game from Sid Meier. Many of the ideas of the Islamists are anything but Islamic, taken, borrowed and stolen from western thinkers, philosophers, radicals and oppositionals. Some of the ideas are Islamic in heritage. Some are Islamic concepts that have been radically - and I mean radically - reinterpreted. The ideology of the Iranian revolution is an excellent example of this, since even Khomeini soon removed himself from classical shiist thought on many accords.

Øyvind

Rene Buchard USA | 2004-08-27 17:12 | Link

Islamic countries often ban all other religions. No one seems to object when muslims are intolerant, it is simply expected. And when explosive birthrates of muslims bring a majority of muslims to currently non-muslim countries, no one will be surprised when these newly muslim countries also ban every religion but Islam.

A muslim is free to submit to Islam. A muslim is free to obey all the requirements of Islam. A non-muslim is free to convert, or to accept the consequences of non-conversion.

If one looks at Islam in totality, you see that it is totalitarian--that is, Islam controls all aspects of a person's life. A muslim must submit in all things to religious authority.

Herbie NY | 2004-08-27 17:17 | Link

It is not that I like Lewis because he agrees with me. I like him becuase I find him cogent.

Herbie, NY NY | 2004-08-27 18:07 | Link

Herbie, NY NY | 2004-08-27 18:13 | Link

You say "Lewis . . . calls the upcoming (or according to some) 'clash of civilizations' a 'perhaps' irrational, but 'surely historic' reaction. That is not the same as: 'They read it in the Qu'ran. They're coming to get us now! Aaaargh!!!' (basically the view of quite a few LGF-ers and posters here)." I disagree with your analysis. What unites these various groups is not a socio-political response but one based exeactly on the Qu'ran. Certainly the Saudis do not base their opposition to Western ideas on socio-political grounds. Indeed when Western ideas are sought to be introduced in Moslem culture the argument always starts or ends with something like "this is on no way contradicts the Qu'ran." At bottom your analysis may in many ways be seen as arrogant cultural imperialism (I do not mean this in an insulting sense). You seem intent on analyzing Moslem action and reaction according to Western norms. Yet Moslem insist on analyzing their reactions under the Qu’ran. I prefer to take people at their word – it is safer in the long run

Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-08-27 18:31 | Link

Rene Buchard:

When you make claims such as these you must have facts to back them with. You say that "Islamic countries often ban all other religions".

That 'often' must mean that a majority or a large minority of Islamic countries does this. Please do name the countries constituting this large minority or majority of Muslim countries.

"And when explosive birthrates of muslims bring a majority of muslims to currently non-muslim countries"

Explosive birthrates? What explosive birthrates? The numbers are quite clear when it comes to Muslim countries: the number of children per woman is falling, at times dramatically, in all except four (in the period 1981-2001): Mali, Yemen, Somalia and Niger. In Bahrain it fell from 7,4 to 2,8. In Iran from 5,3 to 2,6. In Libya from 7,4 to 3,9. Peruvian women have more children than women from Lebanon. American women have more children than women in Azerbaijan.

But of course, you are talking about fertility rates amongst immigrant Muslims in Western (European) countries, are you not? Well, well, although too little research is available on this, there are more than hints of the same tendency. Exploding? Nah... don't think so. But anyway - let us take a closer look at these fears you have, shall we?

France today has a bit over four million French Muslims, according to the Economist. This is about 7% of the French population. If this minority grew for the next 50 years at a rate of 2% per annum, a high rate, while the remainder of the population shrunk at a rate of 0.5% per annum (also a high rate) the Muslim population would amount to roughly one fifth, that is 25%, of the total in fifty years.

To receive any sort of parity between the two groups you would have to wait for a century, still assuming the same sort of growth rates. Is that a realistic threat, an imminent threat, an exploding threat, a threat at all?

Furthermore, research shows that the fertility rate amongst immigrants in France is indeed falling (see French research results here. Let me quote Randy McDonalds - also otherwise my source - translation:

"As in 1990, foreigners living in France in 1999 have on average three children. The Spanish and Italians have fewer children than Frenchwoman, and Africans remain the most fertile. The older the immigration, the closer the behaviour of the foreigners is close to that of Frenchwomen. Like the French, the foreigners become mothers later than before. The schedule of births of Algerians and Moroccans, already close to that of Frenchwomen, has changed little. That of
Tunisians approaches that of Frenchwomen"

Once more the 'threat' of Islam is based much upon myths, and not upon facts (and there are plenty of factual challenges connected to Muslim immigration).

This does remind me quite a bit about what the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten wrote about another minority group back in 1911: that they became a shame for the neighborhoods where they settled because they crowded together in small rooms and with large children flocks and that they often were unhygienic (ref. Norwegian newspaper Klassekampen, 27. august 2004, 'Fortsatt bor en kjøpmann på Løkka').

Øyvind, Bergen

Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-08-27 19:24 | Link

Herbie:

1. First of all, it can be discussed whether the Saudi Arabian regime can be called Islamist or not. The Islamists are often against it themselves, and sometimes because of the exact same reasons that Westerners have for criticizing it.

2. What the Qu'ran says and does not say about different issues is highly disputed - and in fact does not 'ally these different groups'. Please consider the likes of Gannouchi and not only the likes of bin Laden when talking about Islamism. Please consider non-Islamist political movements in the Muslim world when talking about Muslim politics.

3. The Saudis, however, have found allies. They have in fact been partly active and partly reluctant allies of the United States in the region. Their opposition to Western ideas is, in other words, superceded by economic and political interests.

4. The islamists do, as I already have pointed out, and as Burgat also points out in a quote I included above, more often than not point to completely different things than the Qu'ran when they conduct their analysis, amongst other things 'Western imperialism'.

Let's take a look at some Islamist analysis quoted by Bernard Lewis in his book 'The crisis of Islam', shall we? (Introduction, xxiii-xxiv). The declaration is a declaration from the World Islamic Front for Jihad, according to the Arab language newspaper - al-Quds al-Arabi - that printed it it was also signed by, amongst others, Osama bin Laden. It begins, as you might expect with quoting some of the more militant passages in the Qu'ran and hadith, and then continues:

'First - for more than seven years the United States is occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of its territories, Arabia, plundering its riches, overwhelming its rulers, humiliating its people, threathening its neighbors, and using its bases in the peninsula as a spearhead to fight against neighboring Islamic peoples. Though some in the past have disputed the true nature of this occupation, the people of Arabia in their entirety have now recognized it.

There is no better proof of this than the continuing American aggression against the Iraqi people, launched from Arabia despite its rulers, who all oppose the use of their territories for this purpose but are subjugated'

Furthermore the statement says:

'[these crimes amount to] a clear declaration of war by the Americans against God, His Prophet and the Muslims. In such situation, it is the unanimous opinion of the ulema throughout the centuries that when enemies attack the Muslim lands, Jihad becomes a personal duty for every Muslim'.

What can we learn from this, Herbie? Well, here's my suggestions:

1. Extreme Islamists point to both the Qu'ran and their understanding of contemporary events, they claim - aslo in the statement - that Americas purposes are 'religious and economic'. They basically themselves point to historical and economical motives for their hatred against the United States.

Why are you so intent on accepting that what they say is based on supposedly Quran principles, but at the same time so unwilling to consider that the statements the make themselves pointing at political reasons?

2. Mark Gabriel and many of his supporters are utterly mistaken when they say that Islamists do what they do because they (according to Gabriel correctly) disregards peaceful verses in the Quran because of the naskh-principle. These islamists, amongst which bin Laden is counted, indirectly calls upon jihad as a weapon of self-defence!

To these two suggestions I would like to add some further points:

1. Islamists often have radically different interpretations of Islamic principles and law than conservative, orthodox or modernist Muslims. Like the modernists Islamists call for the reopening of the 'gates of ijtehad'. Sometimes they take Muslim principles and give them a new meaning, not seldomly based on a class understanding of society.

2. Islamists talk about contemporary politicial events in a language often borrowed from other critics of the current 'world order'. The Quran does not give us much information on Western imperialism.

What I am saying, Herbie, is not that Islamism was created out of nothing, nor that is has no basis in Islam whatsoever. It obviously has.

Then, on the other hand, there are a lot of political ideas with basis in Islam that are completely different from those of the extreme Islamists. As Burgat in my opinion correctly states: 'it is easier to study one eternal and intangible Islam than all the thousands of interpretations'

Easy does not make right. I also have a further point in common with Burgat, and that is that the exegesis of the Quran often replaces the socio-economic and socio-political investigation which indeed is necessary to understand Islamism.

Let me end this long post with a quote from Bernard Lewis (ibid, p. 145):

'Though at present [the fanatical and intolerant creed of the terrorists is] widely held and richly endowed, this version is far from representative of mainstream Islam through the centuries. The traditions of command and obedience are indeed deeprooted, but there are other elements in Islamic tradition that could contribute to a more open and freer form of governemnt: the rejection by the traditional jurists of despotic and arbitrary rule in favor of contract in the formation and consensus in the conduct of governemnt; their insistence that the mighties of rulers, no less than the humblest of his servants, is bound by the law. Another is the acceptance, indeed the requirement of tolerance, embodied in such dicta as the Qu'ranic verse 'there is no compulsion in religion' and the early tradition: 'diversity in my community is God's mercy'. This is carried a step further in the Sufi ideal of dialogue between faiths in a common search for the fulfillment of shared aspirations'

Herbie, NY NY | 2004-08-27 19:47 | Link

I take your point, but I disagree and all we will do is go round and round. Where did you get your figures on population; they are far different then anything I have read

Herbie, NY NY | 2004-08-27 19:48 | Link

I take your point, but I disagree and all we will do is go round and round. Where did you get your figures on population; they are far different then anything I have read

Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-08-27 20:03 | Link

The figures are from a book written by French demographer Emmanuel Todd: 'Apres l'empire - essai sur la decomposition du systeme american'. It is also available in English.

The figures Todd uses are from the INED, a French institute for demographic research, their website - in French - is found here. However, pretty similar numbers can be found at for instance the CIA World Factbook.

Happy hunting :)

Øyvind

Susan | 2004-08-27 21:37 | Link

Obyvind, in your very optimistic demographic figures you have failed to account for the impact of "family reunification" policies of Western governments. Muslim immigrants source their spouses overseas from 80 to 90 percent of the time in many Western countries. This is the behavior of colonizers, not immigrants.

First you tell us we have nothing to fear from Muslim immigrants, then you tell us, don't worry, they are not going to overtake us in any case, implying that maybe we should fear their demographic increase after all.

Which is it?

Conrad USA | 2004-08-27 22:16 | Link

Interesting comments about democraphic changes in Europe. The best estimates show that muslims will constitute a political plurality in France no later than the year 2040. This means that in a parliamentary system, muslims will be able to control the legislature.

Then we will learn some interesting things about Islam and tolerance, no?

Susan | 2004-08-27 22:44 | Link

Conrad,

Do you think the outcome in France will be different than in any other nation where Muslims predominate?

Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-08-27 22:53 | Link

Susan:

First of all I have not said that we have 'nothing' to fear. As I stated above I believe that 'there are plenty of factual challenges connected to Muslim immigration'. One of many is the threat of importing not only radical Islamism, but also regional conflicts from the Muslim world. There are - whether I agree with them or not -plenty of posters on this blog able to point out those problems without resorting to pure paranoia.

Still, it would be nice if you chose to attack my actual views, instead of attacking ideas you think would be fitting for someone of 'my ilk'.

When it comes to the demographic development, however, the 'threat' is not anything more than a myth (Conrad might want to show why the 'estimates' he claims are the 'best' are the 'best', instead of just throwing empty claims into the air).

It is completely unrealistic to believe in a continued overwhelming amount of immigrants combined with high birth rates to such a degree that France will be predominantly Muslim within near future. It is also completely unrealistic to believe that such a development would result in the victory of an Islamist - or even an Islamic -party in France.

In Norway Muslim immigrants are, thankfully, increasingly beginning to take part in the political system. They are involved in parties all over the political scale, including both the right-wing and immigrant sceptical Progress Party and the Christian Democratic Party.

The Muslim world is going through a 'demographic revolution', Susan, and while I may fall in the trap of overemphasizing parallels between European history and contemporary development in the Islamic world on other accounts this 'demographic revolution' certainly has its clear historic parallel in European immigration to the Americas.

I encourage you to consider the social impacts such a demographic revolution can have, and further to read the views of McDonald (mentioned above) who makes his points on this in more eloquently than I can hope being.

Susan | 2004-08-27 23:35 | Link

Oyvind,

You have completely ignored my point about "family reunification."

Even if one Muslim immigrant couple has only 3 children, "family reunification" results in this:

Generation 1: 3 children x 3 spouses imported from overseas: 6 net increase plus the original immigrant couple = 8

Generation 2: each couple in #1 has 3 children themselves: net increase = 9 plus the 6 from the previous generation plus the original couple =17 net increase.

Generation#3: Each of the 9 grandchildren sources a spouse from an overseas Muslim naton = 18 increase, plus the 17 from before = 35 new people.

All from one couple with the modest total of three children.

And this doesn't even factor in the grannies, in-laws, aunties, etc who also make their way into Europe via "family reunification." There is no way that native-born European non-Muslims can compete with this type of demographic onslaught, unless they too decide to start sourcing all their spouses from overseas. This is how the UK went from a few tens of thousands of Muslims in the late 1980s to more than 2 million today.

With regards to "attacks" on your views, I find your views to be rather inconsistent. You keep moving the goalposts. First you say that a political content in Islam is new, then when ASO brings up the Ottoman Empire, you concur that the Ottoman Empire was an example of political Islam. Then you say that Iran is an example of a democratic trend in Islam but then you back off when I point out that Khameni had anyone who could possibly be an ally of Khatami murdered.

You keep moving the goalposts to fit whatever shot you want to take.

The only thing consistent about your arguements is the idea that we shouldn't criticize Islam or associate it with Osama & Co., and that Muslim immigrants to the West are the same as Jewish immigrants (which is not really true.)

Susan | 2004-08-27 23:37 | Link

SOrry my math got away from me in Generation #3. It should read:

Generation#3: Each of the 9 grandchildren sources a spouse from an overseas Muslim naton = 9 increase, plus the 17 from before = 26 people.

Still a hell of a lot of people being imported into Europe from Muslim nations.

Susan | 2004-08-27 23:49 | Link

Meanwhile a native-born non-Muslim European couople gets married and has three children (which is GENEROUS, considering the average birth rate is less than 2 children per couple):

Generation 1= Mom, Dad 3 kids. Net increase is 3 people.

Generation 2=3 kids each marry other native-born Europeans = no net increase from spouses, have 3 kids each (again this is very generous, given the real demographics are much lower). Net increase is 9 people

By generation 3, the net increase in population due to the original native-born European couple is 12, not 26.

Bjørn Stærk | 2004-08-28 10:09 | Link

Susan: "You have completely ignored my point about "family reunification.""

You're forgetting that this Muslim conquest of Europe is supposed to be inevitable, that only by fighting Islam itself can we hope to escape dhimmitude in 2050. But if demographics is no longer enough, and liberal family reunification policies are required for this to happen, it no longer is inevitable. Take the laws that have been passed in Denmark to end the abuse of family reunification laws. You now need to be 24 years old to be "reunited" with your new spouse from the homeland, which changes the dynamics completely: Parents who practice arranged marriages will now either prefer to marry their children early to other Danish citizens, or will have to wait until after they've had time to get an education. This both decreases the odds of them accepting an illiterate spouse from the homeland and increases integration in general.

If the Danes could do this, so can any of us. The law has been controversial because it also prevents some reunifications it wasn't meant to target, and perhaps there are better ways to do this. The point is that family reunification the way it has been practiced the last 30 years is not inevitable. All we have to do is change the laws.

Susan | 2004-08-28 13:28 | Link

Bjorn:

Exactly. I knew about the Danish laws on family reunification. My point is that if Europe is going to pass those kinds of laws ,they have a narrow window of opportunity in which to do so -- before the Muslim population gets to be so large that democratically it is impossible. Of course it is already difficult enough to pass any law that "discriminates" against Muslims because of Islam's marriage of convenience with the non-Muslim left.

It many Muslim majority countries, it is not possible for a non-Muslim to become a full citizen. They may be tolerated s guest workers or permanent residents, but not citizens. This is how they maintain the hegemony of Islam.

Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-08-28 14:03 | Link

I have adressed your point as much as I felt needed, it is completely unrealistic to expect a continued high birth rate together with a continued low marriage rate with other French nationals.

And as a matter of fact, the 'French' marriage rate is not that low after all, as Randy McDonald points out in the link I have now given three times.

You might want to adress McDonalds other points as well, beginning with this one:

'Well, rates of immigration are high enough, but the main factor is the high Muslim birth rate. In the context of a generalized European birth dearth, high fertility rates on the part of Muslim immigrants will inevitably lead to a replacement of the native European population by non-natives. We’ve seen this before, of course, in such sterling examples as the success of the French Canadians in assimilating eastern Canada and New England, the Italian absorption of France and Argentina, the irreversible Russification of the outer republics of the Soviet Union, the ongoing Mexican conquest of California and Texas, et cetera.

First question of the day: Does anyone see a problem with the above historical summary?'

Susan writes: 'In many Muslim majority countries, it is not possible for a non-Muslim to become a full citizen. They may be tolerated s guest workers or permanent residents, but not citizens. This is how they maintain the hegemony of Islam'

And you suggest that we should go for a similar solution? Or what are you saying - really?

Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-08-28 14:16 | Link

Susan wrote:

"You keep moving the goalposts. First you say that a political content in Islam is new, then when ASO brings up the Ottoman Empire, you concur that the Ottoman Empire was an example of political Islam"

- Er, excuse me, Susan, but I am beginning to suspect that you have not read what I have been writing. I wrote that Islamism is something new. Islamism is an ideology that entered the ideological stage after the Ottoman Empire fell. This does not mean that there have not been earlier examples of politicized or political Islam, and I have never ever made any such claims.

"Then you say that Iran is an example of a democratic trend in Islam but then you back off when I point out that Khameni had anyone who could possibly be an ally of Khatami murdered"

- Nope, I never said that Iran is an example of a democratic trend. That would be silly.

What I have pointed out is that reality is more complex than you seem to like and that the Shiite Islamist regime in Iran actually have had elections with some fairness in them while 'secular regimes' have failed to do this.

While the election process in Iran now is totally couped by the reactionaries, the problems did not use to be the elections, but the fact that an unelected clerical elite could stop initiatives from the elected parliament by branding them 'un-Islamic'.

"The only thing consistent about your arguements is the idea that we shouldn't criticize Islam or associate it with Osama & Co."

Nope again. I have never said that Islam should not be criticized or that there is no connection between Islam and radical Islamism (Osama & Co). It would probably be very handy for you if that was what I was saying, but it is not. What I have been saying is:

1. That Islam and Islamism should not be confused.

2. That while Islamism do indeed also have roots in the Islamic religion the explanations for the growth of Islamism today are of socio-political, socio-economical and socio-historical nature.

3. That much of Islam-critique is based on myths and not reality, and sometimes have similarities with anti-Jewish sentiments in Europe before WWII. I have never ever compared Muslim and Jewish immigrants, though there probably are parallels, what I have compared are the myths used to brand Jews then and Muslims now.

You can of course chose to read this as something completely different than what I write. In fact, I do not expect anything else anymore, why do you not simply say that I am writing that Osama is a cool guy or something like that?

Øyvind

Susan | 2004-08-28 14:18 | Link

"And you suggest that we should go for a similar solution? Or what are you saying - really?"

What I am saying Oyvind -- really -- is that these are the types of laws Muslims may pass when they get political control of a country like Norway (in addition to throwing out any laws, such as the Danish family reunification laws, that work against Muslim hegemony) . As has happened in Malaysia, for example, where Muslims maintain hegemony by limiting immigration and citizenship opportunities for non-Muslims, and by passing very racist laws against the native non-Muslims who already live there -- laws which are getting more and more racist as Muslim hegemony is getting stronger.

Regarding my point about family reunification -- you have not addressed it one whit. Not one whit. Probably because you can't refute it.

Susan | 2004-08-28 14:38 | Link

Oyvind,

Your earlier laudatory citing of Iran's presidential elections did not mention how it was quickly subverted by a campaign of terror and murder initiated by the highest authority in the land. This is a sin of omission if not one of commission. The fact is that Khatami is regarded as at best a figurehead and at worst, a figleaf who presents "human face" of Islam to
lull critics while Khamanei continues his bloody regime. You did not mention any of this but left the casual reader (who would know nothing of
Iranian political trends) to think that Iran was some kind of "bright spot" in the sad annals of Islamic rule.

BTW, it is not in any way, a credible act in my viewpoint, to cite The Center for Islam and Democracy as a supporter of "democracy." The
only "democracy" they support is the right of Muslims to initiate sharia democratically if they so choose. As Ibn Warraq says, the type of "democracy" they support is one man, one vote, one time. This is analgous to Germans
democratically choosing to institute the government that came up with the Nuremburg laws.
Sure the Nuremburg laws were "democratic" if you define democracy as merely majority rule with no safeguards for individual, inalienable human rights.

You have lost whatever credibility you may have possessed with me (admittedly rather low to begin with) by citing John Esposito's pet taqqiya project. Have you even bothered to LOOK at that website? On it you will see articles celebrating the current mass-murdering,
genocidal government of Sudan as an example of the implementation of "democratic sharia." As
well you will see laudatory articles about the "democratic" implementation of sharia in
Nigeria that has cost more than 10,000 lives (and you will see NO input on that site whatsoever from the non-Muslims who have been negatively impactd by the "democtratic" implementation of sharia in either country.) Not to mention that Esposito's sidekick, the equally apologistic John Voll once testified to the US Congress that the Sudan was a "democracy."

A Swedish Observer | 2004-08-28 15:50 | Link

Øyvind,

1. Yes. As mentioned above 20th/21st century islamism is a kind of fascism (remember the old slogan of the Moslem Brotherhood: "Allah is our goal. The Prophet is our leader. The Qu'ran is our constitution. Jihad is our way. Death in the service of Allah is the loftiest of our wishes. Allah is great, Allah is great."). But Islam has never been a religion of peace and tolerance. Islam means literally "submission". It's impossible to hide.

2. Sometimes reality isn't "complex" at all. The Iranian regime is not a democracy and will never be. It's an AUTHENTIC theocratic dictatorship characterized by hatred, oppression and paranoia - and, nota bene, eager distribution of murderous terror. You can't reform within. So, yes, let's hope for a revolution.

3. It's all about texts and role models. Jesus was a man of peace. So was Siddharta - especially after leaving his house. But Mohammed was undisputedly a man of war (either you appreciate it or not).* The Christian Gospels or the Buddhist Sutras don't preach genocide - actually they learn the very opposite. Only Qu'ran is stuffed with lines like "Slay the idolaters wherever you find them." (9:5). And that is unfortunately what pious (!) and highly educated followers of Mohammed have done since 7th century (i.e. in name of Allah and his alleged prophet).

4. Yes, but Sharia (i.e. Moslem religious law) exists and still exercises immense influence. As a member of the Egyptian Brethren you naturally want to impose harsh practices. As an atheist or a Christian Copt you probably hate it more than anything else. So of course it's about position, inclination and interpretation. But sooner or later you have to make a very important choice: either you have theocracy or you have democracy (with all its implications and consequences). Personally I prefer plain secular liberal democracy (including an instinct of self-preservation). According to UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, freedom of speech and belief has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people. Therefore religious decrees - and especially Islamic ones - should preferably be a personal matter. Unfortunately that's not the case anywhere in the world where Muslims are forming majorities.

* Studying the deeds of Mohammed and the developments of his new religion is interesting. It's a bit like Theoderic the Great or usurper chieftain Gånge-Rolf /Rollo had founded warlike pseudo-Christian cults in Italy or France on the assumption that THEY alone were Gods FINAL messengers on earth. (Fortunately - for the western world - they didn't. Instead they and their peers adapted - slowly but steadily.)

Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-08-28 16:34 | Link

So, I am losing credibility now? Hmmm. Well, who is it that continue to say that I am saying things I have not said?

I have not referred to the Center of Islam and Democracy as an example as a supporter of democracy, I have simply referred to it as 'worth checking out' in connection with the debate, a long with a discussion in a United States government-run forum. 'Swedish observer' was polite enough to appreciate those links as valid to the debate, while you try to claim that I have made claims about CID that I have never made.

This does make it quite tiresome to discuss with you, Susan, and I suspect that you know that, and that this is a method you enjoy using. It must feel good.

On one point, however, you are correct. I could and should have included the "whole" story on Iran. When I did not do that it was because I expected the readers of this blog to be informed about the current state of affairs in Iran and because I consider my posts to be more than long enough already.

Do I really need to link to McDonald a fourth time? As you can see he talks about family reunifications at the bottom of his article. In respect of the rules of posting I did not want to put his whole article on here, but I hope that Bjørn and Randy McDonald will now forgive me for cutting and pasting two longer bits from the bottom of it:

"Statistics on intermarriage and minority groups generally are difficult to find in France, partly because of the ban on the collection of information on religious affiliation and ethnic background in the French census after the Second World War. The authors of Sixty Million French claim, on page 301, that half of immigrant men marry non-immigrant women, and that one-quarter of immigrant women marry non-immigrant men, for a total intermarriage rate of roughly 40%. This figure is high, and is only a shade below the 60% intermarriage rate for North American Jews that encourages many to doubt the future of North American Jewry. I can’t find specific statistics for French Muslims, but given their prominence in the French immigrant population it isn’t too much of a stretch to assume comparable intermarriage rates."

Can you provide different or more accurate numbers on how many French Muslims that find spouses abroad, Susan, or are your speculations and nice little number games nothing more than that?

"Why do people argue that Muslims will be taking over Europe? Laziness, as always, is a good excuse. People like projecting trends unchanged indefinitely into the future--witness the recent UN prediction that by 2300 there would be a quarter-trillion humans living on Earth. Taking demographic trends and projecting them indefinitely into the future can be an entertaining past time. As the history of demographic studies has demonstrated time and time again, however, the results aren’t particularly useful as anything but historical articles.

Europeans who use these arguments are particpating in the long-standing fear about being overwhelmed by immigrants. In The Identity of France, for instance, Braudel commented how in the early 20th century, native French were hostile to the then-current crop of immigrants--Belgians, Italians, Spanish, Poles--because of their strong Catholicism and distinctive languages. In Germany and Austria-Hungary, Poles and other Slavs served similarly as threatening spectres to Teutophone areas. Even in the United Kingdom, that European country singularly without much of a pre-Second World War history of immigration, Irish Catholic and eastern European Jewish immigration reliably created national hysterias. In all of these cases, of course, existing ethnolinguistic frontiers remained more or less intact, save where they were altered by wartime population exchanges. The descendants of Slavic immigrants in the Republic of Austria have now become Germanized; the descendants of southern and eastern European immigrants in France have been firmly Gallicized; even the descendants of Hispanophone immigrants in Catalonia have become Catalanized (PDF format).

Americans who use these arguments are motivated mainly by schadenfreude. Are European countries skeptical about the Bush Administration’s foreign policy goals? Could they be interpreted as at least sharing some interests with Muslim countries. We see this in Bat Ye’or, for instance, as she condemns a "Eurabia" created by Muslim immigration which has made Europe suicidally anti-Israeli. ('Suicidally," since anything Israel does is necessary for its defense and ultimately the defense of Europe.) We see this in Little Green Footballs, where nationalistic American posters say that the French will be under shari’a law because these decadent immoral people refuse to have enough children to keep Muslims from inheriting the country. They--sometimes just the French, sometimes the French with the Germans and Belgians, sometimes the entire continent--refuse to support us in our war against Muslims. Accordingly, they will pay the price, and see if we will save them from their short-sighted stupidities this time. Their opposition to our rightful crusade contains their own punishment. FrontPageMag’s treatment of Spain, following the Popular Party’s recent electoral losses, is a classic example"

Since Norwegians are at times more German than Germans themselves we do have a tendency to make statistics out of many things. That's why we in Norway, Susan, do have numbers when it comes to family reunification. How many family reunification immigrants did Norway receive from Asian countries in the first six months of 2004? The answer is 2401. How many from Africa? 791. How many from Europe? 2243 (sorry, not more than 225 Turkish people there, and how scary are those 71 Bosnians)?

And do you know what country was number one when it came to family reunification? Was it Pakistan? No. Was it Iran? No. Was it Afghanistan, perhaps, or Turkey? No on both accords. It was Thailand. 520 Thai people came to Norway on this basis in those six months. And why? Mostly because of men with Norwegian ethnicity finding themselves mostly Buddhist spouses in beautiful Siam.

One Muslim country is high on the list. That's Iraq (467). This can be seen in connection with a recent influx of Iraqi refugees to Norway, and not with some plan thought out in the Muslim world on how to 'invade' us. (Source for the numbers: UDI)

How many years would the Muslims have to use to get a majority in Norway? Go figure, Susan.

Øyvind

Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-08-28 17:02 | Link

SO:

"Only Qu'ran is stuffed with lines like "Slay the idolaters wherever you find them." (9:5). And that is unfortunately what pious (!) and highly educated followers of Mohammed have done since 7th century (i.e. in name of Allah and his alleged prophet)"

I have three comments to this:

1. First of all, the line you give here is taken out of context. Context might be nice to know, and even nicer to know might the fact that there are literally thousands of different exegese on this verse as on other verses in the Qu'ran. This is back to the 'let's thump Quran verses in eachothers head-technique', S.O, and you perfectly well know that Muslims will gladly thump you in the head with peaceful verses from the same book.

2. Secondly... PLEASE! 'Only' the Quran? Have you ever read the Bible or for that matter the Bhadavadgida? Anyway, there are people who have done that and who apply the exact same cherrypicking strategy on those books as you are using on the Qu'ran.

3. Thirdly. Islam is and have always been more than the Qu'ran, just like Christianity is more than the Bible. It is NOT all about text and rolemodels and even if it was your understanding of Muhammed and many Muslims understanding of Muhammed are completely different.

In religious science religions are understood not only by the words, but also by the actions of a religious community. This is why your attempt to portray Christianity as a 'pacifistic' religion are quite laughable (Jainism may indeed be called pacifistic, Christianity may not), and it is also why your attempts to look upon the Islamist exegesis as mainstream or the division between religion and state as lacking in Islam is flat-out wrong.

As even Bernard Lewis, one of the more critical of Islam scholars point out in the quote I have given above:

'Though at present [the fanatical and intolerant creed of the terrorists is] widely held and richly endowed, this version is FAR FROM REPRESENTATIVE of mainstream Islam through the centuries'

I also notice that you are not willing to except that sharia is not ONE thing, but a law open to interpretation and different from Muslim denomination to Muslim denomination. Sharia does not mean 'stoning for adultery', nor does it mean 'death penalty for apostasy'.

What it does mean, however, is 'path' and that path varies a lot depending on which Muslim you ask. To take two extreme examples: There is an enormous difference between the sharia of the Ahmadis and the sharia of the Neowahabists. Both groups, however, believe that godgiven laws exist.

Susan | 2004-08-28 18:07 | Link

Oyvind, "I have not referred to the Center of Islam and Democracy as an example as a supporter of democracy, I have simply referred to it as 'worth checking out' in connection with the debate, a long with a discussion in a United States government-run forum. 'Swedish observer' was polite enough to appreciate those links as valid to the debate, while you try to claim that I have made claims about CID that I have never made."

Then why link to it at all, unless you thought it supported your thesis? The fact of the matter is that Esposito is a notorious apologist for Islam as well as a paid shill for the Saudis. Perhaps ASO doesn't know the history of "The Center for Islam and Democracy" as well as I do? If not, then dear ASO, please spend some time on that site, paying special attention to the "reports" on the "conferences" that the CID hosted for advocates of "democratic" sharia in Nigeria and the Sudan.

Oyvind,
My remarks on family reunification center on reports I've read regarding problems it has caused in Denmark, Holland and Britain. In Denmark the situation was considered so severe that they passed some laws that tried to mitigate it. In Britain the Home Secretary has issued a "call" to British Muslims to marry "British" brides rather than import the usual 16-year-old non-Westernized virgin from Mirpur. In Holland, an article I read on Expatica. com said that 80 to 90 percent of Moroccan and Turkish immigrants source their spouses from "home." I don't have time at the moment to look for these links but I will try to find them and post them if it is so important for you to have them.

Regarding this long post by this blogger McDonald, this is heavily impregnated with personal opinion, not statistics or facts. He admits he has no data on marriage patterns for Muslim immigrants as opposed to data on marriage pattern for just "immigrants." Even if he is correct that 50 percent of Muslim immigrants (purely a conjecture on his part, BTW) intermarry with Native French, that still leaves a high number (50 percent) who DON'T marry with Native French.

This fellow McDonald also extrapolates the progress of the assimilation rates of Muslims in France with the assimilation rates of Roman Catholics in the United States. This is a ludicrious comparison. The United States is not France and Catholics are not Muslims. There is nothing to base a comparison on.

This guy is full of it. I am an American of Catholic background, and I can tell you that the relative Protestantisation of Catholicism in the US was brought about by tremendous social pressures. As late as 1960 John F. Kennedy was pressured to state publicly whether his ultimate loyalty lay with Rome or with the US Constitution.

Catholics in the US were assimilated in an era when assimilation was celebrated. Today it is not, thanks to "multiculturalism" and "diveristy." And, from my European press readings, is it not also the case in most European countries as well? That "diversity" and "multiculturalism" have replaced assimilation as a laudatory social goal? Therefore where are the tremendous social pressures that will lead to French Muslim integration? (Or Muslim integration anywhere in the West?)

Anyways, none of MacDonald's points on this matter are at all relevant, because France is not the US and Muslims are not Roman Catholics. You should be ashamed to link to a blogger exhibiting such faulty reasoning.

Totoro, U.S. | 2004-08-28 18:09 | Link

Oyvind,

Sometimes I think you are missing the forest for the trees. Yes, Islam is very complex, most Muslims are probably not out to destroy Western Civilization, the Koran can be interpreted in many ways, there are many many wonderful and kind Muslims, and so on.

The big idea, which you seem to want to avoid, is that there is a large group of Jihadists, funded by some Saudis, the government of Iran, and some Pakistanis, who do want to spread Islam and are willing to use terror and WMD to do it.

I hope this correctly summarizes the view of many of us "right wingers," who are concerned about the future of our countries. If the Muslims integrate into our societies, as previous immigrants have done, then fine. No problemo.

Susan | 2004-08-28 18:47 | Link

Totoro,

We Americans should not expect anything less of Muslim immigrants than we expected of Roman Catholic immigrants. If American Catholics were expected to acknowledge that they had a greater allegiance to the US Constitution than to Rome, then American Muslims should be expected to acknowledge that their greater loyalty lies to the US Constition -- and their fellow citizens -- than to the Ummah. The problem is, none of their official organs have ever stated such a thing -- in fact, they either state the exact opposite, or they employ a lot of weasel words and evasions and "ifs" that don't fool anyone with half-a-brain.

All I am asking of Muslim immigrants to the US is summed up in that single paragraph. I expect nothing less of them, than my countrymen expected of John Kennedy nearly half a century ago. The fact that Muslims have so far failed this test so spectacularly, speaks volumes to me.

Rene Buchard USA | 2004-08-28 18:57 | Link

We see many in Europe rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, oblivious to the mortal peril. The suicidal direction of European policies spells the doom of once great cultures.

The coming totalitarian states of Europe will not be gentle to the cow-like natives of the subdued nations. These cows have used any rationalization they could find to assure themselves that there was no danger. Their grandchildren will curse them for their submission to the enslavement that is dhimmitude.

Susan | 2004-08-28 19:15 | Link

I found an article on a Norwegian book called "Human Visas" which apparently tracks the impact of family reunification programs in quite a few Northern European countries.

According to the book, "The effect of this is brought out in a research study conducted in Denmark during the period 1969 - 1989. A report by E Vesselbo focused on 145 Turkish men who had arrived in Denmark as guest workers. By the year 2000 the size of this group had increased by a factor of 20 to 2813 persons ranging from the first to the fourth generation."

Book review is found here: http://www.migrationwatch.org/frameset.asp?menu=isthereaprob&page=isthereaproblem.asp under "Migration Trends." No direct link.

Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-08-28 20:54 | Link

First of all, Totoro, no, I'm not missing the forest. I mostly agree with your statement:

'The big idea, which you seem to want to avoid, is that there is a large group of Jihadists, funded by some Saudis, the government of Iran, and some Pakistanis, who do want to spread Islam and are willing to use terror and WMD to do it'

There is a rather large group of Islamists out there. They are a threat. I consider them dangerous. I believe we have to fight them, but - to quote a guy in the sci-fi movie 'Starship Troopers': 'To kill the bug you must understand the bug'.

Susan: "Then why link to it at all"

Because I thought it would have relevance to the discussion Swedish observer seemed willing to raise, the discussion on whether Islam and democracy is at all compatible. You see, Susan, I do not only post articles that I agree with or that support my own views. I believe in a broad approach.

I can still not see you providing any numbers whatsoever on the rate of French Muslims that marry non-French, and neither do I see any kind of information presented by you that suggests that such a tendency will last for several (further) generations. If you are so sure about this 'demographic' theory of yours, please provide the goods, not only the talk. Come on. Let's see it. This far I've seen some mention of Denmark (where the problem has been heavily exaggerated by a immigrant-critical government party), England (where's the numbers) and Holland.

Holland received 6000 Turkish AND Moroccan immigrants as a result of marriage in 2001. The numbers back then was not, as you say, that 80 to 90 percent of Turkish and Moroccan immigrants married someone Turkish or Moroccan. The numbers are high - but not that high. 7 of 10 did find a Turkish spouse (source: Central Bureau voor de Statistiek - "Liefde kent geen grenzen").

While these numbers are high they hardly imply such a demographic revolution as you are talking about, Susan.

Susan | 2004-08-28 20:59 | Link

Oyvind,

Denmark: Iprovided numbers showing that a temporary guest worker program for Muslim Turks in Denmark resulted in permanent residence of more than 2,000 people. Factor of 20.

Britain: It is apparently enough of a problem for their Home Secretary to mention it.

Holland: You concede that the numbers are quite high. 7 out of 10 importing spouses from Turkey -- over how many generations if the trend keeps up? -- this would result in thousands of people over several generation.

Nice try, Oyvind, but no cigar.

Susan | 2004-08-28 21:07 | Link

According to this study, 40 to 50 percent of immigration to Northern Europe is through family reunification:

http://www.mmo.gr/pdf/publications/publications_by_mmo_staff/IMMIGRATION%20lecture%20NIAv6.pdf

Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-08-29 01:39 | Link

But Susan...

1. you have not provided me with any link to the research in Northern European countries, just a reference to an article on Migration Watch that I am sadly do not find. This you provided together with a reference to Holland that was wrong, you said between 80 and 90 percent. It was 70.

2. You have not provided me with any reasonable argument that this limited amount of people (it's a few hundreds yearly from Pakistan to Norway, and just over a thousand yearly from Turkey to the Netherlands) should constitute a major demographic upheaval. You even refuse on commenting on actual numbers, instead talking about percentages that seem much more scary and doing nice mathematic rehearsals based on an indefinite repetition of the current numbers.

3. you have not provided any evidence to these 'facts' in France, while you easily disregard Randy McDonalds information that at the very least hints about another development.

4. you have not provided any evidence that any such trend will, should or even could continue into the future (but you can breathe more easily, I am going to mention one little thing you can use just below - Norwegian Pakistanis. You just have to forget about some other immigrants first)

5. You have not explained why this development will go on seemingly unchanged despite the ongoing demographic revolution in the Arab world that will reach its peak in 35-40 years.

A cigar sounds nice, Susan, but I'd prefer a Cuban one. Before you start shaking your head on that one, though, I would like you to present me with solid evidence that 'family reunions' have the demographic significance you claim it has. While I am waiting I am going to enjoy the smoke-free bars of Norway and this little piece of research done by Statistics Norway.

I only found it in Norwegian, I am afraid, but it has many interesting observations.

I'll mention a few: Quite many of the Moroccan and Turkish men who did marry married Norwegian women in 2001. Amongst immigrant men Pakistanis are notably unlikely to marry a Norwegian. So are Vietnamese, Sri Lankan and Somalis (and there were almost as many marriages involving Vietnamese men as there were marriages involving Pakistani men).

Why do I not hear about the Buddhist invasion or the Hindu conquest of Norway (by European standards there is a high percentage of Hindus in our country)? Isn't susanological demography also applicable here?

To Susans advantage I must add that a lower percentage of Pakistani men married Norwegians in 2001 than in 1990. But then - the same is the case with Vietnam, Chile and Sri Lanka - and the opposite is the case with Turkey!

A few years back a book was written in Norway, by governmentemployed researchers with what probably was too much sparetime. They wrote about different scenarios for the future Norway, one of them more fantastic than the other.

In one of them Norway had 6.000.000 inhabitants. The reason was of course immigration, but not from Muslim countries. Instead the immigration was coming from Eastern European EU-countries. Though fantastic it makes an interesting point that has been coming closer to reality - while we are closing the gates to the Muslim world more and more the EU now encompasses several Eastern European countries and more are likely to come. I guess the Poles are going to contest against the Pakis for the future of Paris.

Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-08-29 01:47 | Link

Sorry, Susan, I missed your latest reference to Northern European countries. I should not have, and it was my mistake.

However, this research paper does not tell us how many of the immigrants in Northern Europe who marry girls and boys from back home, only that 'family reunion' constitutes a large part of immigration. And we all knew that, didn't we?

Often this 'family reunion' is related to marriages entered long before the immigrants arrived to Norway (the high Iraqi position on the list of family reunion cases in Norway is also because of this) and to children from these marriages. It's also related to the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, of course.

Anyway, I thought what we discussed here was something else than this.

Paul M., USA | 2004-08-29 08:32 | Link

You do not have to believe that Islam is inherently evil, or that all Muslims are radical Islamists, to have a rational concern about the compatibility of Islam with Western democracy. Similarly, even though Øyvind and Susan have been arguing for many happy hours about whether and when Muslims will achieve majority in Europe, it is not necessary for the Muslims to outnumber the unbelievers before issues arise.

Jews and Christians, through their separate histories, have learned to create distinct arenas for spiritual matters and secular ones. They are adept at finding ways to maintain their religious identities at the same time as both participating in and submitting to secular political and legal structures. I believe the same is true for Sikh, Buddhist and other minority communities. Islam is different: it has a well-developed tradition from its earliest days of combining both religious and worldly power, and for Muslims there is no division between the two. Perhaps as a direct result of this, Muslim communities in Western countries seem to be struggling—or perhaps are not trying—to integrate themselves fully into their host societies.

For example, in the UK a Muslim majority is clearly not a looming threat. Muslims make up just 3% of the population. However, the Islamic community in Britain is increasingly unwilling to accept the shared values of the country and inclines instead to isolate itself from the rest of the society, maintaining itself by its own rules. Pointing out that it is now the country’s second largest religion, it has started to press for the expansion of British law to encompass Sharia courts, rather than adapting its own practices to coexist within the laws of Britain. It argues that conflict between British law and Sharia is discriminatory against Muslims, and uses the European Convention on Human Rights to support its claims. Because Islam claims authority over all aspects of a Muslim’s life, the implications of these demands are enormous. One instance: In an effort to better accommodate the needs of Muslims, Britain has just authorized its first Islamic bank. I am no economist—I do not know that there are any negative economic consequences to this innovation (although it’s an easy guess that they will be boycotting Israel), and for all I know it may be beneficial in bringing more Muslims into the British economy. However, to me this seems a step towards creating a separate, Islamic Britain, living within but largely autonomous from the rest of the UK. Once again, this is occurring when Muslims are a mere 3%. I am not encouraged to accept Øyvind’s reassurances about the inevitability of assimilation.

Øyvind quotes Bernard Lewis to the effect that tolerance is an important demand of Islam. He is right to remind us that, to varying extents, Muslim societies of the past have indeed shown tolerance to others. But they have done it on their own terms, from positions of dominance. That is a far cry from the kind of tolerance, understanding and humility needed to adapt themselves to situations where they are the minority in someone else’s society.

References:
http://www.aml.org.uk/resources/AMSS_AT_Notes_22_02_04.pdf
http://www.alternativesjournal.net/volume2/number1/yilmaz.pdf
http://debate.org.uk/topics/politics/jenny3.htm

Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-08-29 14:29 | Link

Paul:

Thanks for an interesting and wellwritten post. I agree with you that there are 'issues' that are and will arise. These, I am sure, will rise in both America and Europe, but being a European I will name those I know best:

1. The ghettos that are being created in some European cities (like Rotterdam and Brüssels, or for that matter Oslo) is becoming a problem since they can be an obstacle for integration.

2. Growing Islamist sentiments amongst European Muslims. We have already seen that many of the most extreme and anti-Western Islamists, from Sayyid Qutb off, have visited Europe or other Western countries for a long time or studied here. 'Western Islamists' are perhaps the most dangerous of Islamists.

3. Regional and national conflicts imported to Europe a third. An example is the growing anti-Semitic sentiment in France, partly as a reason of immigration of both Jews and Muslims from North Africa. Other examples are conflicts between different groups from Muslim countries. While Susan seem to think of Muslims as a singlefaced group that will work together to claim power for a strict sharia state when they many enough the truth is that conflicts between Muslims can constitute a larger problem.

4. The creation of a new underclass consisting of immigrants. We already see tendencies to this in Norway, unemployment is large amongst many immigrants, housing conditions poorer, crime more of a problem and alcoholism on the rise. Alcoholism is in fact a great problem amongst Norwegian Pakistanis.

However, Paul, your claim that there is no separation between 'religious' and 'worldy' power in Islam and that there for Muslims is no division between the two is, on its best, unprecise. On its worst it is outright false.

While Islam can be said to teach such a lack of division (some Muslims would agree in this, some would not), history shows us that there has been a division and many Muslims think that there should be such a difference.

That view is not only found amongst modernist Muslims, but also amongst conservative and orthodox believers, their view on this is - as you might know - one of many differences between the late ayatolla Khomeini in Iran and ayatolla Ali Sistani in Iraq. Even some Islamists think that there should be such a division.

The Islamic Resistance Movement in Palestine - known by its acronym Hamas - does not, but they do ironically favor a solution somewhat similar to the Israeli one, only with Islam instead of Judaism as the 'fundament' of the state. An they are not the only one in Palestine thinking this, Irshad Manji gives us this interesting piece of information in her book 'The trouble with Islam' (p.101):

'My driver told me, 'What we need here is rule of law, just like they have in Israel'. Public opinion echoes him. According to the Palestinian pollster Khalil Shikaki, 'When Palestinians are asked what democracy they most admire and want, to this day Israeli democracy comes first''

I do not wish to hide away the factual challenges Islamic immigration to Europe constitute, nor the challenges that the ongoing demographic revolution in the Arab world will inevitably make up. What I want is an Islam-critique that is nuanced and based on facts, not myths.

That there is no division between state and religion for Muslims is a statement terribly lacking of nuance, and it borders on being a myth.

Øyvind

Susan | 2004-08-29 15:36 | Link

Oyvind,

"I'll mention a few: Quite many of the Moroccan and Turkish men who did marry married Norwegian women in 2001. Amongst immigrant men Pakistanis are notably unlikely to marry a Norwegian. So are Vietnamese, Sri Lankan and Somalis (and there were almost as many marriages involving Vietnamese men as there were marriages involving Pakistani men).

Oyvind, can you really be this freakin' dishonest? Get a clue. We are talking about MUSLIM immigrants here, not Hindus and Buddhists.

Hindus don't put up websites bragging about how they are going to turn the West into a "Hindu-ruled" state. Neither do Buddhists. Both assimilate well into secular society in the US and I assume this is the same in Europe. None of them have a problem with any of our secular laws. None of them have endless requirements regarding marriage, birth, death, dress, food intake, national loyalty, etc. that conflict
with secular laws that need to be "accommodated" to satisfy their faiths.

If so many Hindus and Buddhists are immigrating
to Norway, good for them. Ihink that's a good thing: it increases the ratio of kaffirs to
Muslims and will thus help retard the irredendist tendancies of Muslims in Norway.

Regarding your quibling about numbers: I think 70 percent of Turks in Holland importing their brides from Turkey to be a very worrying trend. the Expatica.com story may have been referencing a trend for one year, not over several years -- I don't remember. But 70 percent is not that much different from 80 percent or 90 percent -- it is still a hell of a lot of people being "transferred" from one place to another. A hell of a lot of people being "transferred" from a primitive backward society to a modern peaceful society which is feeling a negative impact from their endless demands and assaults on the native culture.

Susan | 2004-08-29 15:55 | Link

From one of your links, Paul, they are proposing that polygamy be legalized in Britain for Muslims (as it is in Indian -- to great resentment of the Hindus, Sikhs and other non-Muslims.)

Now wouldn't that be wonderful for the Dar-al-Islam? Instead of being able to import one 16-year-old illiterate cousin from Mirpur into the UK, let's make it legal to import four of them? Of course, if Ali can't support the 17 children produced from his four marriages, he'll expect the British welfare state to pick up the tab in "benefit."

Once Muslims become powerful enough to demand legalized polygamy (heavily subsidized of course by the non-Muslim population) it will really
be over for Europe as a Western Civilization. Please wake up and smell the coffee. You are playing with fire. You are committing cultural and political suicide.

Totoro, U.S. | 2004-08-29 16:15 | Link

Susan,

You said yesterday: "We Americans should not expect anything less of Muslim immigrants than we expected of Roman Catholic immigrants. If American Catholics were expected to acknowledge that they had a greater allegiance to the US Constitution than to Rome, then American Muslims should be expected to acknowledge that their greater loyalty lies to the US Constition -- and their fellow citizens -- than to the Ummah."

I agree, and I believe this applies to Muslims in Europe as well. Re the Catholic issue around 1960, I'm sure that many Catholics had their feelings hurt by the anti-Catholic prejudice of the time, but in the end, the issue played itself out.

Maybe some Muslims will have to have their feelings hurt too (that's where CAIR likes to enter the picture and cry "discrimination" when a Muslim gets his/her feelings hurt), but that's the price they're going to have to pay for living under Western rules of law.

Susan | 2004-08-29 16:43 | Link

Totoro,

It is not going to be so easy to "tame" US Muslims as it was for US Catholics. US Catholics pre-1960 kept apart and had their own schools etc., but they did not have myriad, endless laws governing every aspect of their lives which conflicted deeply with secular society. They did not demand that stores selling meat on Friday be shut down; they did not brag about setting up a "Catholic-ruled" state in the US; they did not demand special prayer rooms in the public schools or exemptions from local health laws for their burial rights; they obeyed secular law regarding marriage etc. and did not try to replace it with religious law. My mother and father got a marriage license as the law states even though they were married in a church. Many Muslims who "marry" in the US do not marry per legal requirement. There are many other laws tha they do not respect either.

The Pope did not have an army in 1960; Muslims have many armies, both formal and informal. There really isn't much of a comparison, although those on the left who specialize in moral relativism as their biggest weapon, try again and again to force us to compare an apple with a watermelon.

Rene Buchard USA | 2004-08-29 17:08 | Link

Huge muslim families, supported by generous welfare subsidies, growing, ever growing. No need to work, no jobs anyway, just growing more faithful, more mosques. Eurabia ascendant, Euro-muslim paradise. No need for a majority. Simply intimidate the Euro-cows, Euro-sheep, into submission. Just the threat of violence sends the cud-chewing natives into great demonstrations of obeisance.

Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-08-29 17:32 | Link

Susan:

Yes, I know you are talking about Muslim immigrants, and one of your points is - as I have understood - that Muslims are terrible, terrible people (after all you can find a few of them that write awful stuff on their websites), while non-Muslims are just terribly nice.

Still, if we se the same tendency amongst non-Muslim and Muslim groups to 'intermarry' and find spouses abroad, and we use the same questionable demographic methods as you do use, Susan, this means that we have to except other immigrant groups to grow 'explosively', too.

Now, here's the catch: Even if we all were to accept your hypothesis - still without evidence to support that a high number of spouses found abroad will be a continuing trend - would not this still mean that Muslims will have to compete hard for that majority with the Hindus?

While there are many immigrants from Pakistan in Oslo - Norways largest city - about 19000 of them, there's also close to 7000 Sri Lankans and 4500 Vietnamese. In Bergen, the Iraqis is the biggest immigrant group, just beating the Chileans. After those two the Vietnamese and the Sri Lankans pop up again. In Trondheim the Vietnamese is in the lead. In Kristiansand too. If you go visit immigrant neighborhoods around Europe, you'll not only find Muslims, but also Hindus, and Sikhs.

But hey - they're not after world dominance! Whoever heard of Hindu extremists or Sikhs blowing up planes..? I have.

Okay - instead of this up-down procedure we have been taking for a while, let's take a bottom-up look. I do not know if you have any Muslim friends, Susan, I have my doubts, but I'm not going to be prejudiced here. I have Muslim friends. Quite a few of them. I have also had a couple of teachers from the Muslim world - one Algerian woman who taught me the little tad of Arabic I know and a Bosnian guy who was really good at the accordion.

What do these people have in common? Well, not much. They do have one thing in common, though: They're not extremists.

One Muslim friend of mine has been a local politician for the Labour Party, not terribly Islamist, but rather terribly socialdemocratic - just like the rest of us Norwegians. A Muslim I lived together with in a students home has been a member of European Muslim youth group and sometimes wears his Pakistani variant of 'bunad' (national costume). While his views on women were less than enjoyable, they were not so distant from what if heard from many Norwegians. He made nice dinners. These days he works, I've heard, for the oil industry. That smells of integration to me. Then there's my accordion teacher - who is as European as me, and lives like one, and my Arabic teacher who's probably an apostate anyway.

Where's the need of anxiety there? Oh, you're right - of course you're right, Mohammed Atta also wore Western clothes and he even drank beer and went to strip clubs so I can really expect ANY Muslim to be an al-Qa'ida member in disguise. Or can I?

What about you other Norwegians here? Do you know any Muslim or people coming from Muslim countries? Are any of those extremists? Please tell me.

Since you seem to be unlikely to provide me with anything that supports your theory that the intermarriage trend is something that will last generations into the future* - we could perhaps focus on another problem with your grand thesis - the problem of Muslims not agreeing with each other.

In Norway we've got perhaps 100.000 Muslims, although quite a few of those are probably Muslims of the kind that go to the Mosque on Eid al-Fitr, but otherwise keep their kebab shop open, and some are apostates. About 70.000 of those are members of different Muslim organizations. Do you know how many different congregations they have, Susan? The answer is about 70. While some of those are members of the Norwegian Islamic Council, most aren't. Does that seem to tell us about a great agreement amongst Muslims in Norway?

Furthermore, while we don't have any Islamic People's Party or The Democratic Party Kill the Infidels in Norway we do have quite a few other parties (we haven't even got the Hizb-ut-Tahrir, they tried establishing themselves here, but the Norwegian Muslims were seemingly not extreme enough). Look at the people from Muslim countries elected to 'bystyret' in Oslo - who do they represent? Well, there's Chaudry Akhtar in the Socialist Left, and then there's Sadeghi Sapideh in the Socialist Left - she's in her early twenties and also known for being a feminist and for writing in radical Klassekampen, maybe that's scary for American Republicans, but I can assure you that that's one of the points where you are completely in agreement with mr. bin Laden.

Let's continue, shall we? We've got Tariq M.Shah in Venstre - a Liberal party. In the Labour Party we'll find Saera Tithi Khan, Khalid Mahmood, Karima abd-Daif, Ahmed Ali Wais and Kamil A. Azhar. And in Høyre - the Concervative Party? Aamir Javed Sheikh, Mertefe Bartinlioglu and Samira Munir. So... all the way from the Socialist Left to the Concervatives, huh? Does that smell of agreement amongst the Muslims? Should I add that there's also Muslims voting for Carl I Hagens Progress Party (FrP) and Muslim members of the Christian (!)Democratic Party (KrF)? Or that the only person of Muslim heritage in our parliament is representing the Concervative Party?**

Øyvind

* after considering the demographic development in the Arab world, which you seem unwilling too, we could also considering how several European countries - including our dear example Holland is already limiting the possibilites for such a trend to continue - maybe they're not all potheads after all. Of wat denkt jij?

**As a small footnote I might add that there are many more Muslims in Norway than there are right-wing extremists. Still there are several right-wing extremist parties, while there's not a single one fighting for a strict understanding of sharia and for cutting hands of criminals. Why?

Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-08-29 17:36 | Link

Susan wrote: "try again and again to force us to compare an apple with a watermelon"

Well, they are both fruits, both sweet, often green on the outside, and they can both be used for making cakes. Not that different after all, perhaps?

Hehe.

Susan | 2004-08-29 18:36 | Link

"I do not know if you have any Muslim friends, Susan, I have my doubts, but I'm not going to be prejudiced here. I have Muslim friends."

Again, you have no idea, Oyvind. Oh, you have NO idea, not at all, not one mite of a clue. What a brainless comment.

Helen Curtis Canada | 2004-08-29 22:28 | Link

I understand that Canada is one of the top destinations for muslim emigrants. I am not sure whether to be flattered or threatened. Oyvind certainly gives no reassurance with his blithe attitude of denial.

I suppose Europe will have to be the canary in the mine shaft, since they are closer to the muslim home countries, and often a stopover for muslim emigrants on the way to the new world. I would feel more optimistic about Europe if I felt that the Swedish Observer was more typical of the European mindset than Oyvind, who I suspect is a muslim troll.

Susan | 2004-08-29 23:21 | Link

You can make a cake out of a watermelon, Oyvind? WTF?

Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-08-30 00:23 | Link

No, I can't make a cake out of water melon alone. You got me there. A water melon pie, though, is nice. Yummy.

Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-08-30 00:28 | Link

If I were to be a troll, dear Helen, I would prefer to be a Norwegian one. With a tree on my nose and maybe a couple of heads so I could use whatever time I do not waste on the net to quarrel with myself.

Anyway, I never heard of those Muslim trolls.

Boo!

Øyvind

Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-08-30 00:46 | Link

By the way, Helen, you 'suspecting' me of being a Muslim because I happen to disagree with S.O... isn't that much the same as when Salahudin called people Jews because they happened to disagree with his (I feel tempted to break Bjørns rules on what adjectives to use here) opinions?

Maybe we're all trolls. Boo again!

Terje, Norway | 2004-08-30 15:47 | Link

Regarding the discussion between Susan and Øyvind considering "family reunions", I'd like to quote from a report issued by Human Rights Service, a Norwegian NGO dedicated to the issues related to integration. http://www.rights.no/webtekst/diverse/statistikk_ekteskap_1996_2001.htm

This report discuesses marriages entered into by Norwegians of immigrant origin, both so-called 1st and "2nd generation immigrants" (I hate this term, which label people according to their parents background. It is however widely used here in Europe.) The data are taken from Statistisk Sentralbyrå, Norway's government agency for compiling statistics, and apply to the years 1996-2001. They show among other things that, for 1st generation immigrants:
-Pakistani women: 72.9 % find spouse from their home country, 25.3 % marry another Norwegian with Pakistani background, 1.3 % marry a Norwegian with a non_pakistani foreign background while 1.3 % marry Norwegian with an ethnic Norwegian background. 1.3 % - 3 out of 479 marriages! In the years 1996, 87, 98 and 2000 there was not a single marriage between 1st generation Pakistani-Norwegian women and ethnic norwegian men.

The figures for men are roughly similar. Moreover, the report shows that this trend is increasing: the % of Pakistani-Norw. women who found spouse in their country of origin was 58 in 1996, 85 in 2001.

More worrying, perhaps, is that this trend is even stronger among "2nd generation immigrant" women. The figures for Norwegian-Pakistani women are, out of 331 marriages entered into from 1996 to 2001: 250 (ie 75 %) were with a spouse from their parents country of origin, 73 with a Norwegian with Pakistani background, while only 3 with an ethnic Norwegian. This seems to contradict the notion that integration is an automatic process that only requires time to complete itself.

The figures are even more dramatic for 2nd generation Turkish-Norwegian women: 79 out of 97 marriages were with a partner from their parents home country, while only 1 with an ethnic Norwegian. Also, the report shows that the average marriage age of 2nd gen Turkish-Norwegian women who found their spouse abroad was 18 years. This lends some support to Bjørn's argument that a measure similar to the Danish 24 year rule might have a positive impact. (Another idea would be to banish marriages between cousins, although perhaps harder to enforce)

My concern is not that this will bring about a huge demographic shift and that Norway will end up with a majority Muslim population. That is just one of many scenarios and there are too many unknown factors to make reliable predictions. But this says a lot about the disregard for individual human rights inherent in multiculturalism. I do not accept that just above 1 % of Pakistani-Norwegian women ("2nd generation") marry ethnic Norwegian men (I mean , we cant be that unattractive, can we??). If this is not a signal that multiculturalism has failed, then what is? Does anyone seriously think that more than 3/4 of young Pakistani-Norwegian women - who have grown up in Norway, attended Norwegian schools and so on - find it natural to go to a far away country in a different part of the world to marry a person they might not even have met before (in many cases their cousin; in another report, HRS argue that about 50 % of marriages by Pakistani-Norwegians are with a cousin, with the associated implications; the number of birth defects is substantially higher among immigrants than Norwegians)?

These figures seem to suggest that forced marriages are occuring on a large scale in Norway, and politicians generally don't seem to take the debate, because they're afraid of "contributing to stereotypes about immigrants" and so on. It's seems to be generally accepted that if your parents are not ethnically Norwegian, then one of the most basic human rights - the right to marry the one you want - doesn't apply to you. The rights of young women (and men) of immigrant background are sacrificed in order to avoid dealing with controversial issues that might go against multiculturalism (though why it should be considered controversial - in 2004 - to argue for the right not to be forced to marry someone against one's will, is beyond me. Says quite a bit about where multiculturalism has taken us.)

So Øyvind, I appreciate your contributions to this forum - although I often disagree with them - and I agree with you that the fear that Muslims will "take over" Norway is exaggerated, for a number of reasons. Still, I dont think there is reason to feel so smug about our achievements in integration. There is a long way to go.

(Sorry if this post was a bit lengthy and a bit OT, I know it's not directly related to Islam)

Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-08-30 18:15 | Link

Terje:

I, for one, appreciate your post, because it adresses real challenges, and not imagined ones.

Although Human Rights Service is a source one should not always trust - as you probably know they have been in hard weather lately - they do raise a very important debate when it comes to forced marriages (although one should keep in mind that arranged marriages and forced ones are two different things) and also when it comes to the lack of Norwegian-Pakistani marriages. While we should keep in mind that also other groups in our society have a tendency to 'intermarry' this is a challenge that should be adressed, as it can be interpreted as a sign of lacking integration.

I am a bit unsure what Norwegian authorities should do concerning these issues, since the Danish laws have also had unintented and negative effects. Maybe young Norwegian Pakistanis have a better answer to that question than any of us, they do - after all - know the shoes they're walking in.

Øyvind

Susan | 2004-08-30 22:30 | Link

Terje, thanks for your post, for it shows that the situation in Norway among Muslim immigrats is as I suspected. This is what is happening all over Europe with Muslim immigrants. The "family reunification" programs were put in place to address unions that already existed, but they are now being grossly abused to import more and more people into the host countries -- regardless of whether or not the indegenous population wants them.

Oyvind, you are certainly quite cheery at having been proven dead wrong by Terje. All your links to the blogger MacDonald "suggesting" that Muslims in Europe are not grossly abusing family reunification programs, and not therefore multiplying rather rapidly, are going for naught. It looks like my little "susanology" exercise is actually quite accurate after all.

Totoro, U.S. | 2004-08-31 00:53 | Link

Terje, Norway:

It's too bad that your figures come at the end of this very long thread. They're important, and I hope a lot of people will read them.

Maybe you can post them again sometime, if the occasion arises.

By the way, slightly off-topic, but not much--When the British conquered French Canada in 1763, there were few French Canadians, and the British ruled the roost. But the French Canadians had a high birthrate, and over time, gained a huge influence in Canadian affairs. This is known as "the revenge of the cradle."

Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-08-31 09:55 | Link

Susan:

Concerning the numbers for Pakistanis these numbers have been very well known to me for a while (I have read the Statistisk Sentralbyrå research HRService shows to).

I have in fact also pointed them out myself: "Amongst immigrant men Pakistanis are notably unlikely to marry a Norwegian. So are Vietnamese, Sri Lankan and Somalis". In fact Vietnamese men are even more unlikely to marry Norwegian women than Pakistani men are (2001 numbers).

Who provided the actual Dutch numbers, Susan? It was me. And why would I do that?

Because I obviously do not deny that there is a trend to 'intermarry' and to find spouses in their own countries amongst certain immigrant groups (in Norway, there's also a growing trend when it comes to finding spouses in or from other foreign countries).

What I have asked you to do is to provide numbers showing us how big this trend is in France (LGF favorite example), while I have pointed out the actual yearly numbers of individuals in Norway and the Netherlands.

These numbers are not telling of a Muslim invasion, neither are they numbers saying us anything about how family reunions are being 'misused'. While this surely happens, it is perfectly legal for Norwegian citizens to find spouses abroad, and this applies (and should indeed apply) also to Muslim Norwegians. The only things these numbers are a telltale sign of is lacking immigration. Some leftists may deny this. I do not. The lack of immigration amongst immigrants, both Muslim and non-Muslim, to Norway and other European countries is a real problem. Not because they will become a majority and then make us blond-haired people 'dhimmis', but because it creates problems of ghettofication, unemployment and crime.

I have given you one further challenge, Susan, and that is to prove that this is a development that will continue and that it will have such a demographic significance as you claim.

You have not proven this, you have only pointed out old numbers (look how many the Turks became in Denmark!) and then made a nice little graph pretending that this numbers will increase in the same way for an indefinite amount of time. That's not demography, Susan, that's susanology. If you use the same technique on the number of Thai women coming to Norway I am sure you will find some amazing numbers. If you use the same technique on the support for the Progress Party you can easily conclude that their support soon will be larger than the 'support' for Saddam Hussein in Iraqi 'elections'. Now, that's scary.

Have I denied the current trend, Susan? Nope. What I have written is:

"It is completely unrealistic to believe in a continued overwhelming amount of immigrants combined with high birth rates to such a degree that France will be predominantly Muslim within near future"

The keywords here, Susan, are: COMPLETELY UNREALISTIC, OVERWHELMING, COMBINED WITH HIGH BIRTH RATES, TO SUCH A DEGREE.

What I furthermore have challenged you on is the idea of the 'great union' of Muslims; Muslims agreeing upon everything, willing to create a strict sharia state based on Wahabi teaching at anytime they get a chance. Alas, you have chosen not to comment on this.

Øyvind

Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-08-31 11:00 | Link

Sorry, I see that my at times lacking English have made me make a silly spelling mistake a couple of times. When I have said 'intermarry' I should have said 'inmarry', as 'intermarriage' of course is the opposite, namely to marry someone from another community.

By the way it might be interesting to take a look at the Jewish Americans tendency to marry each other through the last decades. Before 1965, 10% of Jews who married did so outside the faith. Since 1985, 52% of them did so. (Source: National Jewish Population Survey).

By the way, US Census, tells us: 'Four out of five Arab men and nearly three out of four Arab women married non-Arab spouses. Among foreign-born Arabs, 67% of men and 38% of women married non-Arabs after they came to the U.S'. According to researchers this applies to both Christian and Muslim Arabs, though the tendency to intermarry is possibly (probably, I would say) higher amongst Christians. (Source: Journal of Family and Marriage)

A Swedish Observer | 2004-08-31 12:06 | Link

Øyvind,

If everything is about "interpretation" or "context", if there are no substantial theological or psychological differences between Christianity, Buddhism and Islam - how can it be such things as Moslems, Mosques or Islamic proselyting?

I appreciate your willingness to underline the complexity of life and politics. As I told you I'm no friend of Manichean cosmology (and that's the very reason why I don't like the armed Islamic dichotomy of "believers" and "infidels"). But in my view your engagement seems to be quite enigmatic (also your references to an author like John Esposito). Personally I'm both proud of, critical to and dependent on our own civilization (with its schools of philosophy, its pluralism and splendid works of art). I'm prepared to respect anyone who respects me and my way of life. Frankly tough, I don't feel ANY obligations whatsoever to Mecca and Medina or 21st century Cairo and Jalalabad. Especially not after the atrocities of 9/11.

Several Swedes have been murdered - in New York City, Indonesia, Israel and Saudi Arabia (all of them in the name of Allah). Strangely enough I haven't yet heard any clear or outspoken condemnations - either among these famous "moderates" or by the "ordinary" clerics of Sweden.

Concerning heavenly inspired prophets I'm quite skeptical in general. But OK, let's pretend that 7th century Mohammed was a prophet - Gods messenger on earth. If you believe he was you're welcome. But NOT if you tell me that he's the ONLY and FINAL one and that I must SUBMIT or even DIE if not yet a follower. That's the bottom line here. If we westerners can't deal with it some other future power surely will.

Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-08-31 13:18 | Link

S.O:

1. I have not once referred to John Esposito (although I did refer to the Center of Islam and Democracy, where he is a member).

2. There are theological differences between different religions. I have never said anything else.

3. I have never claimed Islamism has nothing to do with Islam. I, like you, have pointed to earlier theology. However, I have repeated several times, there's a tendency to exaggerate the explanations of Islamism found in Islam and to forget the socio-political and socio-economic reasons for the growth of Islamist ideology.

4. It's sad that neither media nor anti-Islamists seem able to notice these voices, but here is two of many examples that actually have been seen in Swedish media:

http://www.svd.se/dynamiskt/utrikes/did_7118753.asp

- There are those amongst us that think and believe that terrorist attacks are good. I encourage these people to leave us and the Mosque now. They do not belong here.

- Islam does not accept terrorism and we do not accept terrorists amongst us. We will fight against these individuals with all means.

(imam Hassaan Musa, Stora Moskeen, Stockholm)

http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=1422&a=174411

- We lastly want to clarify our opinion: The Islamic Association of Sweden condemns all violence targeting civilians and delcare that extremism and religious fanaticism have no place in the Mosque.

(Ahmed Ghanem, leader, Svenska Islamiska Förbundet)

Muslims can often be criticized for not taking their own extremists seriously enough, and for disregarding elements in their own faith that are being used by extremists. Luckily there's an increasing number of these voices too. Irshad Manji is not alone.

The phrase "I can not see any condemnation" that is often used by Islam-critics can not have many other explanations than that they have simply not been looking.

Øyvind

Susan | 2004-08-31 16:11 | Link

Oyvind, still comparing apples to watermelons I see?

A couple of obvious points ,which I've made before.

1. Jews are not Muslims.
2. Europe is not the United States.
3. Most Arab immigrants to the US have historically been Christians. Of course they have high inter-marriage rates. They are also highly successful people. Most of the accomplished people in the US of Arab ancestry are Christians.

A Swedish Observer | 2004-08-31 17:03 | Link

Øyvind,

"Shejk" Hassan Mousa is a bluffer. So is Ahmed Ghanem:

Dubbla budskap i moskén - Doubble messages in the Mosque (Svenska Dagbladet 23/5 2004)

Last year the "European Council for Fatwa and Research" convened in the very same Mosque of Stockholm (July 2003). This "main stream" congregation is by the way tied to The Moslem Brotherhood (and therefore Hamas - Harakat al-Muqawamah al-Islamiyya).

The council way headed by the notorious Yousef Al-Qaradhawi:

Fatwor utfärdas i Stockholm - Fatwas drawn up in Stockholm (Svenska Dagbladet 8/7 2003)

Al-Qaradhawi Speaks In Favor of Suicide Operations at an Islamic Conference in Sweden (Middle East Media Research Institute, 24/7 2003)

Massmordspredikan i svensk moské - Genocidal preaching in Swedish Mosque (Dagens Nyheter 21/8 2003)

Religiöse ledaren stödde massmord - The religious leader promoted genocide (Dagens Nyheter 4/9 2003)

---

As a friend of "context" you seems to be a little bit out of focus. When I speak about condemnations I speak about real condemnations (like 35.000 demonstrators in the capitol of Sweden protesting the overthrowing of Saddam Hussein in 2003). Not some silly charade.

There are some 400.000 Moslems in Sweden!

---

Yes, the Queer refusnik Irshad Manji seems to be a very brave and outspoken woman. But she's by no definition a representative of the "moderate majority" (which was my subject). Irshad wrote "The Trouble with Islam" while serving as Writer-in-Residence at the University of Toronto’s Hart House. Not in Cairo's Al-Azhar University.

Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-08-31 20:31 | Link

When am I going to learn to press preview first? Sorry, Bjørn. This is the final and complete one:

Al-Azhar is not "moderate". It is concervative and also linked to the Egyptian government.

Yes, one could say that the speech you refer to is a case of double messages. I sort of expected you would bring that one up. Please notice, however, that the speech I referred to was held in Arabic, not Swedish. I think your response is quite typical when confronted with Islamic refusals of terror: They don't mean it! They're just bluffing.

(Sometimes adding: Because they're allowed to lie! The Qu'ran/hadith/the practice of taqiyya/whatever grants them that right! They're bad. There are no moderate muslims! They're all fundamentalists. They're going to do this/that/even more of this-and-that).

However, what Moussa did say [*] in the other speech (referred by the same Arabic-born and Arabic-speaking journalist as the first one), are striking examples of a very real problem within Muslim societies. In her book, as you might know, Irshad Manji, points to anti-Semitism (and as I've stated above: this is sadly widespread amongst Muslims, more widespread than radical Islamism). The problem of anti-Americanism is just as big.

While Moussas statements are clearly anti-American beyond any sense, they are not a general accept of terrorism and his statements (in Arabic!) against terrorism are still clear.

Furthermore, S.O, the quote I had from the (then) leader of the Islamic Association of Sweden, was as you saw from a rebuttal against articles from the meeting with Qaradawi. Here Ahmed Ghanem also says:

'The article is ten pages long and leaves no doubt in its message that all the theologians at the place agreed in condemning violence against civilians'

Now, as you correctly point out Qaradawi is well known for his support of suicide attacks in Israel, concidering Israeli civilian targets as non-civilian. However, as the writer of one of the articles you yourself linked to points out:

'Those who know Arabic and are reading the last lines of the report in al-Sharq al-Awsat must surely see that the council did not agree on the [issue of] suicide attacks. But what role does that play when they in the nine and half pages before this have printed parts of the fatwa al-Qaradawi issued where he blessed mass murder and 'human bombs' as religious sanctioned terrorism'

See? There's absolutely reason to criticize al-Qaradawi for his support of suicide attacks. There's reason to criticize al-Sharq al-Awsat for their report. There's reason to criticize Ghanem for not criticizing this. And there's reason to criticize - as Salam Karam has shown in another report - Muslim clergy in Sweden for showing little willingness to adress an extremism on the rise publicly [**]

But to imply that Ghanem or the Islamic Association in reality supports terrorism, and to call them 'bluffers'? Please.

By the way, the article I took the latest quote from was also written by a Muslim under pseudonym, out of - I would guess - understandable fear for extremists) - and he concludes:

'We Swedish Muslims must not let what happened under the fatwa meeting happen in the name of Islam. We have both the duty and the right to defend our religion against abuse. And I think that all Swedes have the duty and right to defend democracy and human value and not let anyone exploit the freedom of speech to encourage hate and murders of civilians. Not in the name of Muslims and not in the name of God'.

I thought you had not seen any clear condemnations, S.O? But now I realize - Swedish Muslims must make huge demonstrations before you believe those of them that oppose terrorism.

I do not share that opinion. Like Hallden [**] however, I believe that what Sweden - and Norway - lacks is a discussion about Islam initiated by Muslims. I also believe, like Manji (see my Norwegian-language review of her book) - and others like her, that there are problems in mainstream Islam that needs to be adressed.

If I had the impression that was what you were trying to do, S.O, I would applaud you. But if that is indeed what you are trying to do you need to leave certain myths behind.

Do not say that Islam and democracy is not compatible, that only serves those amongst Muslims who oppose democracy, while those who support it will suffer. Do not forget that religious tolerance also has a place in the history of Islam. Do not claim that Islam has no division between state and religion when history proves otherwise. Do not portray Christianity and Islam as ideological counterparts when it comes to peace and war.

You repeatedly say that you do not support a Manichean worldview. That's nice. Then please do not attribute to the 'Clash of Civilizations'. Because that's not what it is. As someone else on this blog noted, it is instead a clash of lunacies.

Øyvind

P.S: Where do you have that number of Swedish Muslims from?

[*] As reference for those readers that do not understand Swedish or Norwegian, here's the
translation, at Winds of Change.

[**] For further reference for English-speaking readers I have translated a part of this article:

'When I bring my notepad and want to quote the representatives of the mosque they are talking about how strong the unity amongst Muslims in Sweden is, and that the media is distorting the picture of anti-Semitism amongst Muslims and that they are victims of an anti-Islamic propaganda campaign. This is the official picture. In private conversations, without my pad or tape recorder, another picture is given.

I am being told that extremism and antisemitism amongst Muslim youth is a rising problem, that there are groups in Sweden that openly support the ideology of Taliban and fight against moderate Muslims.

It is also said that many Muslims do not care about following Swedish laws because they consider Sweden a secular country. - In Sweden we are missing a debate about Muslims initiated by Muslim, states Philip Hallden, Islam researcher at Lund University. - This is partly due to general minority behaviour, he says. - As a minority you want to give the impression that everyone inside the minority group are in agreement. - This also has to do with the Islamic tradition. Disagreement is the worst thing that can happen to the Muslims. Muslims are afraid that their internal problems will be deepened and exploited by anti-Islamist groups in Swedes, Philip Hallden concludes'.

Øyvind | 2004-08-31 23:37 | Link

Yes, Susan, and you never proved me wrong on those similarities between melons and apples either. Why do I always feel hungry when talking about this?

Øyvind | 2004-08-31 23:47 | Link

S.O:

Qaradawi is, by the way, not only well-known for his statements about suicide bombs, but also for being one of the spiritual leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood (or Jamiat al-Ikhwun al-Muslimun, since we're having fun with the Arabic).

In other words, he's an Islamist, and he's not exactly a moderate, though he is definitely more moderate than a couple of other Egyptians and a certain Saudi with Yemeni heritage I could mention. When he visited England a while ago (and was wished welcome by Ken Livingstone - the mayor of London) some Muslims were far from happy about it.

'Ghayasuddin Siddiqui is a member of the Muslim Parliament of Great Britain. He says al-Qaradawi has made what he calls "very unfortunate and unacceptable remarks." But he does not say that is enough to justify banning the cleric from visiting the country. "What upsets the Muslims in this country is that when [French nationalist politician Jean-Marie] Le Pen came -- he is an equally undesirable person -- there was no demand that his entry be banned," Siddiqui said.

Source: Radio Free Europe

Ironically Qaradawi is also a vocal supporter of democracy. An this is one of several things he's got in common with the terrorists in Hamas. So, we're back to the complex reality, aren't we?

Øyvind

A Swedish Observer | 2004-09-01 18:42 | Link

Øyvind,

Thanks for your reply - and your research.

Yes, I agree - we have a problem here.

But let me correct you.

1. I never said that Al-Azhar is moderate. I just mentioned this University - perhaps the most famous Islamic institution in the world - to underline that Irshad Manji (as nearly every other Moslem and Arab "intellectual") is forced to work OUTSIDE both the centers of Moslem learning and Moslem life (which nearly always means the West). Still Irshad Manji isn't a moderate. She's a dissident, a queer activist and a refusenik (from "refuse").

2. I know the profile of Mr. Al-Qaradawi quite well. I never said he was a "moderate" - although I have heard Moslem and Arab representatives called him so in Swedish Television (also "liberal"). And yes, I read a lot about his visit to London this summer.

3. Yes. Actually I want to see a clear and loud Moslem condemnation of Islamic terror, hatred an violence - preferably of the dimensions I mentioned (among the 35.000 demonstrators in the capitol of Sweden protesting the overthrowing of Saddam Hussein there were lots of Moslems, I suppose preferably of Arab descent).

4. No, I don't trust Hassan Mousa or Ahmed Ghanem. Why should I? There are plenty of other cases here. Ahmed Yassin was cheered as a "martyr" this spring by a speaker in the same Stockholm Mosque (fully visible in SWEDISH TELEVISION, SVT, Agenda, Mars 2004). These characters have to clean up their own mess. That's not the duty of ordinary Swedes or Swedish newspapers.

5. Hamas is definitely NOT democratic (perhaps like NSDAP). Their manifest (1988) is a fusion of Islamic rant and classical anti-Semitism and is undisputedly inspired by the same paranoid world view as "Mein Kampf".

6. This is definitely not a "clash of lunacies". I'm not the one who conducts ethnic or religious cleansing. I'm not the one who kills worldwide in the name of God. I'm not the one who blames the "Jews" or the "crusaders" for my own misfortune and misery. I'm not the one to commit anti-Jewish or anti-Western hate crimes all over Europe. On the contrary I'm a defender of western pluralism and liberal democracy (in my opinion the very opposite to the supremacy of ANY "final revelation"). Please read my earlier posts.

P S According to sv.wikipedia.org there are some 400.000 individuals with Moslem background residing in Sweden - although it could be a little bit to generous.

Herbie NY, NY | 2004-09-01 19:13 | Link

Is there a point where the actions of a group move so far beyond the pale of humanity that the group ceases to have any claim and they should simply be destroyed? In Russia the Chechans have now taken take 400 students hostage. Thye have further stated that "for every destroyed fighter, they will kill 50 children and for every injured fighter — 20 (children)," the ITAR-Tass news agency reported. Where is the outrage in the Moslem world; there does not appear to be any and it is as silent as Yorick's skull.

Putting to one side that there must be a special place in hell for people who threaten another's children, is it appropriate for the Russians to now say that if a Russian child is killed that they will kill all Cechan children. I think that I would be considered in a distinct minority, but I am prepared to endores the view that such actions put the Chechans so far outside of humanity that the laws no longer protect them in any form.

Susan | 2004-09-01 19:50 | Link

Oyvind,

I did not respond to your remarks about apple and watermelons because I thought it was deflective drivel. If you really want to know:

1.) Watermelons are cucurbits, apples are pome fruits. The closest relatives to watermelons are cucumbers, pumpkins, squashes and various types of melons such as cantaloupe. The closest relatives to apples are pears.

2.) Watermelons grow on vines ON the ground; apples grow on trees ABOVE the ground.

3.) Watermelons are annuals; apples are perrenials.

4.) Watermelons are relatively large, and mushy inside; apples are relatively small, and hard inside.

They are not anything alike, but if it makes you happy, I shall henceforth compare your transparent moral equivocating to bananas versus apples.

A Swedish Observer | 2004-09-01 23:58 | Link

Yesterday was an ordinary day in the world of Islamic terrorism: French hostage crisis in Iraq, mass murder in Beersheba (and ecstatic celebrations in Gaza City and Nablus), mass murder in Moscow and beheadings of 12 Nepalis in the name of Allah (ritual snuff movie Arab style). And yes, today we have a new hostage drama with hundreds of schoolchildren (!) involved in North Ossetia.

These people believe that God is on their side. Actually they see themselves as pious. It's disturbing. But they are not acting in a vacuum. (Neither do the financiers, the theorists or the sympathizers.) Their behavior is rooted in a specific order, a specific historical mind-set (and we're not talking about Ahimsa).

A global Jihad is being waged against "infidels" - from South East Asia and Africa to North America. It's impossible to deny - especially after 9/11 (only if you're a modern Caspar Hauser).

Paul M., USA | 2004-09-02 16:09 | Link

"Putting to one side that there must be a special place in hell for people who threaten another's children, is it appropriate for the Russians to now say that if a Russian child is killed that they will kill all Cechan children. I think that I would be considered in a distinct minority, but I am prepared to endores the view that such actions put the Chechans so far outside of humanity that the laws no longer protect them in any form."

Herbie, this is an obscenity. You cannot confuse me with a fan of Islam, or an apologist for terrorism, but there is no justification and never will be for the kind of attitude you countenance above. What would be left that would be worth salvaging from Islamism if we sank to that level of barbarity? We do not need to become inhuman to win our war against the fanatics—quite the opposite.

Øyvind | 2004-09-02 17:04 | Link

Swedish Observer:

I should have been clearer on a couple of accounts. First of all, it was not my intention to imply you were a lunatic - your posts here do not give me that impression.

The 'clash of civilizations', however, is a 'clash of lunacies', at least this far. Those who want that clash to deepen are nutcases, and those nutcases are found amongst what are wrongly or correctly called 'fundamentalists' in both 'civilizations'.

Secondly, Hamas, should - as you point out - in no way be considered democratic. My point is that they at times support democracy, just like al-Qaradawi, and this is fairly obvious if you read their unofficial London-organ Filastin al-Muslima.

It is, as far as I know, only available in Arabic, but it should be possible to find translations of some the articles in it, and Andrea Nüsse makes a few interesting points in her book, 'The ideology of Hamas'. This is one example of liberal-democratic ideas taken and being used by Islamists, but when it comes to Hamas there's absolutely more of the kind you suggest... ideas like those of NSDAP.

Finally, S.O, let me quote some more from Lewis, in regards to your talk about Chechens:

Because holy war is an obligation of the faith, it is elaborately regulated in the shari'a. Fighters in a jihad are enjoined not to kill women, children, and the aged unless they attack first, not to torture or mutilate prisoners, to give fair warning of the resumption of hostilities after a truce and to honor agreements. The medieval jurists and theologians discuss at some length the rules of warfare, inlcuding questions such as which weapons are permitted and which are not. There is even some discussion in medieval texts of the lawfulness of missile and chemical warfare, the one relating to mangonels and catapults, the other to poison-tipped arrows and poisoning of enemy water supplies. Some jurists permit, some restrict, some disapprove of the use of these weapons. The stated reason for concern is the indiscriminate casulties that they inflict. At no point do the basic texts of Islam enjoin terrorism and murder. At no point - as far as I am aware - do they even consider the random slaughter of uninvolved bystanders

The Chechen terrorists do (at least often) believe that God is on there side, and (at least often) see themselves as pious. This is disturbing, you're right. However these characteristics are far from limited to Muslim lunatics.

Øyvind

Øyvind | 2004-09-02 17:32 | Link

Susan: "Watermelons are relatively large, and mushy inside"

Just like Muslims, in other words? :)

Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-09-02 18:34 | Link

And btw, as you say Manji is no moderate. She's a liberal. Luckily she's not a single voice, but one voice amongst many.

Fatema Mernissi, a teacher of sociology at University Mohammad V in Rabat, Morocco, is another voice worth listening to.

I'll include a couple of quotes from her bokk 'Islam and democracy - Fear of the Modern World' (it's from 1992, but a new edition was published in 2002 - the first quote is from the introduction of that edition):

'The Taliban's Kabul may look much like ninth-century Baghdad, where unpopular calpihs such as the Abassid al Mu'tadid tried to regain power by outlawing jadal [i.e controversy, somewhat parallel to Socratic discussion - mentioned repeatedly in the Qu'ran, Ø.s note], which was the most popular form of street entertainment. In 279 of the Hijra (A.D. 872), "public announcers warned that no one was allowed to stop in the street and speak to the public, and no kadi (judges) or munajim (astronomers) were allowed to speak at the mosque. Printers were forbidden to sell books about jadal (controversy) and falasifa (philosophy)".

But there is a huge difference between the ninth-century Abbassid caliph and Taliban, a difference that highlights the irreversible trend toward democratization in the Muslim world. The caliph did not have to face the risky situation inflicted on the Taliban when it invited them to convince Arab viewers, using the rules of jadal, that destroying the Bamian statues was in keeping with the Islamic tradition. When Egyptian religious authorities argued that Islam had invaded Egypt and never destroyed pharaonic sites because those artifacts were respected as significant in world history, the Taliban were discredited when their representatives showed how little they knew about either Islam or the pharaohs.

Satellite TV is definitely not good for extremists. When the Taliban seized Kabul in 1996 and Richard Keller, the president for Pakistan operation for the petroleum gigant UNOCAL, claimed the new government would "be good for us", he did not realize that millions of viewwers made a link between Islamic extremism and the American oil industry. It also became clear to Arab viewers where the ignorant Taliban had obtained their funding for advertising themselves as Islam's best spokespersons. What surprised people like Brahim and Karim was that Mr. Keller thought it good for America to rely on criminals like the Taliban to secure his "way for the oil and gas pipelines he hoped to build through Afghanistan at a cost of 8 billion dollars". How could it escape Mr. Keller that he was jeopardizing his wife's and daughter's security by associating his profit schemes, even for a short period (UNOCAL suspended its project four years later), with a group of extremists who did not share his own notions of civic virtue?

Karim [mentioned before in the introduction] was right about the necessity to ensure that winners and losers share the same "Saladin" peace values. Evidently many Amerians do share Saladin's peace vision because many U.S.-based activists condemned UNOCAL for supporting the Taliban. However, the American courts reduced them to silence: "In September 1998 a group of Green activists asked California's attorney general to dissolve UNOCAL for crimes against humanity and the environment and because of UNOCAL's relations with the Taliban", reporter Ahmed Rachid in his ominous book "Taliban", which revealed that many American citizens disapproved of crossing the ethical line. Though this initiative failed, the UNOCAL events revealed that terrorists can ideed be subdued if peace-nurturing citizens in both East and West know each other's views. A tough job awaits both the Eastern and Western media: that of making sure that violence is criminalized everywhere'.

'The Arab world is about to take off. This is not a prophecy. It is a woman's intuitition, and God, who knows everything, knows that women's intuitition is rarely wrong.

It is going to take off for the simple reason that everybody, with the fundamentalists in the lead, wants change. The fact that they propose to go forward by going backward doesn't alter the fact that they ardently want change. There is a very strong wish in this corner of the world to go elsewhere, to migrate collectively to another present.'

Finally I'll include a description of the book I found on Amazon:

'From one of the world's foremost Islamic scholars, a revised edition of a classic and groundbreaking book on Islam.

Is Islam compatible with democracy? Must fundamentalism win out in the Middle East, or will democracy ever be possible? In this now-classic book, Islamic sociologist Fatima Mernissi explores the ways in which progressive Muslims--defenders of democracy, feminists, and others trying to resist fundamentalism--must use the same sacred texts as Muslims who use them for violent ends, to prove different views.

Updated with a new introduction by the author written in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States, Islam and Democracy serves as a guide to the players moving the pieces on the rather grim Muslim chessboard. It shines new light on the people behind today's terrorist acts and raises provocative questions about the possibilities for democracy and human rights in the Islamic world. Essential reading for anyone interested in the politics of the Middle East today, Islam and Democracy is as timely now as it was upon its initial, celebrated publication.

In short - I'll recommend it :)

Shrike | 2004-09-02 20:21 | Link

From Susan:
"then American Muslims should be expected to acknowledge that their greater loyalty lies to the US Constition -- and their fellow citizens -- than to the Ummah."

Completely agree, and I'll also add that American Jews must also acknowledge their greater loyalty to Washington rather than to Tel Aviv.

Angelo-U.S. | 2004-09-03 04:25 | Link

WOW....I am delighted and amazed to see such variety and depth to the viewpoints debated here.I feel most enlightened. I have a keen interest in Islam and the problems that accompany it. Seeing Salhuddin's pseudo-intellectual ravings so soundly refuted was most entertaining. It is a shame that such intelligent and spirited discourse seems to have been forced underground due to political correctness.Is this true only in the U.S.? Why is it so acceptable here to be ignorant and indifferent? What is so wrong with questioning Islam? I would like to hear more from Susan. Please e-mail me if you read this. Thank you all. Angelo

A Swedish Observer | 2004-09-03 12:40 | Link

Øyvind,

Yes, feminist Fatima Mernissi promotes what she sees as an indigenous democratic vein in Islamic tradition (and consequently her book about veils was banned in her home country some years ago). Yes, the Arab world of today forms a deranged and self-destructive part of humanity. Yes, it needs reformation and modernization as soon as possible (because when London, Milan or Paris has been transformed into rubble it may be to late).

But I've to repeat one VERY important question:

Is Qu'ran the COMPLETE and FINAL revelation of God - or just a book among other books?

You can't compromise.

Øyvind | 2004-09-03 16:57 | Link

S.O:

I am not a Muslim, and if I was to choose any one religious faith it would probably be the Bahai faith.

However, I believe that Muslims have a right to believe in Muhammed as the final prophet of God, just like I believe that Christians have a right to believe in Jesus as a final prophet, or Mandaeans to celebrate John the Baptist.

Øyvind

Herbie NY | 2004-09-03 17:37 | Link

Oyvind you say "I believe that Muslims have a right to believe in Muhammed as the final prophet of God, just like I believe that Christians have a right to believe in Jesus as a final prophet, or Mandaeans to celebrate John the Baptist" as if that were the end of the issue. It is not. The issue is not belief the issue is the attempt to impose that belief on others. It seems to me that your views are so morally relative that you they end up being nothing and they distinguish nothing. Thereis no moral compass of any sort. Call it what you will soci-political or Islamists, the reality is: buses with civilians are blown up in Israel, Nepalese workers are beheaded and Russian school children are killed. The further reality is that these horrific acts are all done by the adherents of one faith Islam and each when pressed point to Koran as a source of "right" for their actions. Whatever its stage of development, in its current form Islam appears to a great and growing danger to the West and dialogiue does not appear to be working.

I recently wrote to a friend of mine as follows:

"There must be a special place in hell reserved for the "people" who took the school children hostage in Russia. When they let several parents and children go, the Chechens told the parents that were hostage and who had two children there that they had to chose one child to go and one to stay. You may recall that the perpetrators also threatened to kill 50 children for each Chechen killed and 25 children for each Chechen wounded.
>
At some point actions go so far beyond the pale of humanity that the perpetrators should expect to lose all of the laws protections including their own "innocents".
>
In his book "Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument With Historical Illustrations" by Michael Walzer, he recounts two actions that one would have thought were war crimes, but were on trial found not to be. In the first the Germans forced back into the Leningrad the civilians
trying to escape to put pressure on the Russian troops knowing that the civilians would die. When the German generals were put on trial
they were acquitted on the ground that this act was not a war crime. In the second, French Resistance took about 30 German soldiers
prisoner and threatened to kill them if the Germans did not stop torturing captured Resistance members. The Germans did not stop and all of the captured German troops were executed. Thereafter the Germans largely stopped torturing captured Resistance members. The persons killing the German prisoners were not, after consideration indicted.
>
I see not reason why the Russians does not have the right to take an equal number of Chechens prisoner and execute them if the Russian
children are harmed. At some point horrific acts must be made to be so very costly to the perpetrators that such acts will no longer be
worth the cost.
>
> I understand the arguments against such a position and the morality urged. However, in my view you reach the point where there must be
some equilibrium restored in human relationships.
>
> The Romans established that a flag of truce was inviolate. When their enemies at first killed Roman soldiers who approached them under a flag of truce, the Romans responded by butchering all of the solders and civilians that were associated with them. After this happened a number of times, the entire world accepted the fact that a flag of truce was inviolate. In the end the world became a better place. I am of the view that when civilians are targeted and attacked that the response should no longer be targeted but should be in the form of such retaliation that the cost to instigator will be so high that such acts will be given up or the population that the attacker is part of
will face being destroyed."

There is almost no internal Islamic voice that has been raised against these horrors; the only voice they raise (and apparently you) is that to criticize Islamic thought is somehow a sign of prejudice. When we reach the point as we appear to be now doing, that such criticisms are labeled prejudice, then we will have started to be unable to distinguish the difference between right and wrong and started down to self-destruction. Islam if it is to be a member of human community must be held to account for its ideas and the implementation of those ideas. I, for one am not prepared to run the risk, based on some sort of absurd concept of moral relatively, that Western society will die. Islam and its adherents have a choice and the choice is theirs: either accept other groups and religions as co-equals and forswear terror as method of advancement or be prepared to: a) have severe limits placed upon you in Western society in a manner similar to that of Dhimmi and b) overwhelmong retaliation for terroist acts on yiur "innocents.".

Herbie, NY NY | 2004-09-03 18:20 | Link

Fox news reports that "10 Arabs among terrorists who seized Russian school" So much for soci-political theories.

Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-09-03 20:45 | Link

'Fox news reports that "10 Arabs among terrorists who seized Russian school" So much for soci-political theories.'

Aha, so the actions of 'Arabs' can never be understood from a socio-political perspective? They are just 'monsters', I guess, like the orcs of Mordor? Is Osama Sauron and who's the Balrog? Is George W. Bush Gandalv?

Sensible, Herbie, terribly sensible... and then you follow up by suggesting we should butcher civilians.

What is this, your very own variant of the final solution or perhaps you are merely helping me out by proving my (stolen) point about a clash of lunacies.

Your other comments are not really worth commenting on, but since I am a fool and fools do rush in, I'll do it anyway: I have stated that - like Irshad Manji - believe there are problems within mainstream Islam that needs to be adressed. That is not moral relativism.

Øyvind

A Swedish Observer | 2004-09-05 19:35 | Link

Again we hear that Islamic terrorists - who constantly kill worldwide in the name of Allah - are not "true" Moslems. Well then, who are? In my opinion this is nothing else than a sophistical word-game - and it reminds of the "explanations" following the unmasking of the horrors of Stalin or Pol Pot: Gulag and the Killing fields were not acts of "true" socialism...

Øyvind, I recommend you to study my earlier posts above (for example 24/8-25/8).

Actually I'm not obliged to "understand" Islam at all - although we westerners nowadays are overwhelmingly more tolerant, generous and open-minded than ever the inhabitants of Egypt, Sudan or Pakistan (proof: massive immigration, Mosques, social welfare, extensive cultural "training" and "sensibility" and of course myriads of University programs and courses, networks, publishing houses, art-exhibitions, restaurants etc.).

Yes, I'm proud of this openness. But not the openness of a mass grave.

First and for most I'm obliged to defend my own civilization (based on Greco-Roman, Judeo-Christian and local European traditions); particularly the modern era of extraordinary scientific and humanitarian achievements (making this internet-conversation possible).

Which bring us back to Herbie's summing-up (25/8):

a) can the West and its values ever engage in a meaningful dialogue with Islam -- as it is currently formulated (religous or soci-political)-- or would that just be a "Hudna" peace

In my opinion NO. Not the Islam of 7th century Mohammed (or for that matter "President" Khatami or the illustrious friend of Ken Livingstone - star preacher "Sheikh" Yousef Al-Qaradhawi). Perhaps different Sufis and other marginal sects or dissidents, perhaps radical reorganizers (ready to embrace self-criticism and free inquiry, accept secularism, oppose misogyny, respect non-Moslems, fight terrorists and thugs etc.) but not mainstream Islam (= an obsolete and totalitarian ideology not suited to coexist with other cultures ON EQUAL TERMS). The so called "struggle" will go on - somehow, somewhere - until every single human being has been accustomed to "submission". So it seems.

b) if it can, how to do so?

Under the umbrella of military pressure, democratic globalization, reason and a thorough reformation. Islam has to skip Sharia and Jihad. Islam has to separate the Qu'ran from law and government. Islam has to recognize its historical crimes (like the Vatican did recently). Moslem leaders, clerics and scholars have to ban EVERY attempt to violate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

With other words - Mohammed has to stop slaying infidels and enter the family of man. Otherwise we - or some future China or India - will be forced to help the Moslem world to quit these medieval delusions once and for all. It's inescapable - and definitely troublesome.

Herbie NY | 2004-09-07 20:57 | Link

A Swedish Observor: "Well said" and to the point

Geoff | 2004-12-18 22:46 | Link

PS: Salahudin is "Ahmad" on forum.jamaat.net - and yes, there too he regularly calls those who don't agree with him "Jews" or "Nazi Jews". Either. Unfortunately for this punk, his precious website had a little accident a while ago, and we may not be seeing too much more of it. (Of course, my opinion is that someone higher up yanked it when I started wiping the floor with Ahmad/Salahudin and all his pathetic cronies. TOO easy.)

Geoff

Wallace | 2005-02-15 16:04 | Link

Islam is the greatest evil in the world today. Nothing more.

Kim Sook-Im,US | 2005-02-16 11:46 | Link

A swedish observer wrote:

"Under the umbrella of military pressure, democratic globalization, reason and a thorough reformation. Islam has to skip Sharia and Jihad. Islam has to separate the Qu'ran from law and government"

Don't hold yr breath, it would be easier for a zebra to change its stripes than for Isssssslam to undergo reformation.

Read on ----> http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina31119.htm
( can islam be reformed ?)

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/jamalhassan/humanizingislam.htm (can islam be humanized )

Sabbapâpassa akaranam, kusalassa upasamapdâ,
sacittapariyodapanam etam Buddhâna sâsanam

( Not to do any evil, to do good,
To purify one's mind, this is the teaching of the Buddhas )

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/Gunasekara/bethics.htm

Kim Sook-Im,US | 2005-02-16 12:13 | Link

Islamophobia ?....tolerance vis a vis Islam in free societies and western countries ?...i think not if members of free societies have an iota of common sense !

read on---> http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/AzarMajedi41216.htm

Princess Maha Pajapati Kim

shakir Hashmi | 2005-05-14 14:53 | Link

Asalamu Alikum Wa Rahmatullah Wa Baraktoo

In the name of ALLAH Who Is Most Beneficient,Most Merciful.

All Praises to ALLAH SUBHANA TAYALLA

All mankind is mean making. They like to say what they think rather than having the research on it and pondring on the creation of God who has made everyone and described his all creature In Quran and conveyed the message of humanity and it's existance and awareness through The Teaching Of Prophet MUhammad (Peace be upon him). Islam is very simple religion. Media has put it as very complicated Religion and most of the time media has only taken Ignorance remarks and i tell you what anyone who doesn't know about his creater is ignorant in this world and think of them that they are right. There are guide lines for everything we do and whoever is following the guide lines is successful in the eyes of Allah Subhana Tayalla. Now the discussion above is only based on what we see as this world is deception and everytime cheating us and telling us lies.I want all of you to ponder into your life and see that who is doing all this things and who is controlling it. Yet we can't control ourselves and blame those who are seeking the right path and been decieved by the open enemies of God and His Commandments. We have so little knowledge of everything and you are trying to tell something that even you don't acknowledge that your creator is same. My Friend there is only one religion that'll take everyone to their destination(Death) and that is Islam. Since when you have started to follow your religion that you can give/write critics about Islam. Writing and telling about their own being and what they suppose to do is good that at least you know what Muslims believe in and that Islam is true. It's Teaching are true and there is no other way to meet God other than this. There are no classes of Islam it is only one. There can be differences in Believe because not everyone is Intellactual to understand it and to understand that what they do and why they do. Man is ignorant and only known by the knowledge that's been given by Allah. What knowledge you have to prove this that you'll go to heaven.what knowledge you have that when you will die. If you have all these answers then write me back.

small worksheet | 2005-08-11 15:34 | Link

small worksheet

wall poster

chartlet

calorie table

nutritional

lessons

worksheet

http://eatrightcards.com/

help | 2005-08-11 15:49 | Link

while oils group

wall poster

chartlet

calorie table

teaching

help

MyPyramid.gov

http://eatrightcards.com/_bpages/8706.cfm?

xango web site | 2005-08-11 15:54 | Link

still purchase xango

xango juice

xango web site

xango distributor

Mangosteen

Mangosteen Juice

xanthones

http://www.xengo.com/xango/5169.cfm?

Frank Souami-Ferrand | 2005-10-02 12:33 | Link

Bjorn wrote :
Bjørn Stærk | 2004-08-22 19:22 | Link

"The vikings were conquerors, pirates and barbarians who raped and pillaged their way all around the North-European coasts, who invaded, massacred and oppressed the natives. Not all the time, but often enough to leave their mark on much of the continent. Are you sure that's the historical precedent you want modern Scandinavians to emulate?
...
I don't see any Scandinavians here who's been speaking favorable of vikings. But then I suppose they know Scandinavian history. "

Well, this is a usual self-whipping view of western peoples on their own history.

By a funny counterpoint of what you say historians consider the vikings as open minded an tolerant although they are fierce and harsh warriors.

If they surely massacred, raped, and plundered in conquest time, it is a caracteristic widely shared with all other conquerors at the same time, Franks and Arabs, to speak about Europe only.

But they policy in peace time was to adapt and adopt the conquered lands customs, respecting their new subjects culture.

You should know about Sicily well known among all historians as a Norman kingdom that integrated all local cultures including roman and arabic, and is always quoted as a model.

You may also know about Normans who were given a duke duty in western France were flowerished a rich civilization that lead to the current UK with William the conqueror.

Former to them were the Goths who wandered in Europa, comming from Gothland you should have heard about, somewhere in current Sweden. They finally established in Spain where they were resectfull of hispano-Roman culture, laws and religion.

How can you so arrogantly assert you know scandinavian's history with such a biased opinion relying on nowadays values applying them on 1000 years ago era ?

Just look at what was happening at the same time in the neighborhood and you'll have a more moderate view and surely more exact on your ancestors.

I'm not scandinavian, I'm french, I'm just studying history with keeping one thing in mind :
Our ancestor were just the same people as us but in a different environment. Not the reverse.

Jeshum Khan | 2006-02-10 19:57 | Link

Believe it or not, the following DID happen. Not too long ago, a Muslim publicly said he would never go out with another Muslim as he would only want to convert a girl from any other religion as long as she was beautiful and stupid. He went on to admit he had been taught to hate all religions other than Islam, at his local Mosque. He wasn't lying. An extremely large majority of the young Muslims that i have met, have clearly been taught to hate other religions and convert thier women through lies such as saying they love the unfortunate woman, or by violence. Gullible, desperate girls, are falling into this trap every day and nothing is being done about it. A 22 year old man invited (online) my girlfriend (16- same age as me) to "get to know him" online. This is where the whole conversion process starts. My girlfriend went out with a muslim for a month. She's regretted doing so ever since as he is now known to be a muslim who wants to convert other girls his age. Don't believe most (9 out of 10) muslims are in the wrong? Wake up then because you're clearly asleep. Thank God my girlfriend never kissed that guy or even held his hand. His breath stunk and he smelt too bad to be anywhere near to her. They broke up because "things weren't working"- she made it clear that she finally saw sense. I wish all these Asian (not muslim) girls who are being trapped day in day out, saw sense as well. Hundreds are being tricked into going to pakistan, and when they're there, their possessions are taken from them and they are put in brothels. FACT. I say the world wakes up and does something about the growing islamic problem.