Wednesday, February 20, 2008
by Anwar Sheikh
12 January, 2006
Man is born with a moral sense which enables him to differentiate between right and wrong. Without subjecting behavior to a common standard of vice and virtue, social evolution is not possible. This is the reason that even the primitive societies had words which denoted difference between good and bad.
All societies did not practice universal standards of vice and virtue, yet it is well known that almost all communities knew what was good and bad. For example, mutual fidelity of consorts, speaking the truth, keeping promises, respecting family ties, helping the poor and weak, were considered signs of good morality. Of course, morality cannot be coded but its rules are well understood. From this attitude arose the famous maxim: "Do not do to others what you do not want to be done to yourself."
It means that you must wish others what you wish for yourself. Since every one desires security of person and property, liberty to worship, fair trial, freedom of speech etc., these facts, over a period of time, rose to become what is called Human Rights. He who violates these rights is held the enemy of humankind.
When Islamic morality is judged by universal standards, this Arabian religion fails to qualify as the friend and guide of humanity. In fact, it constitutes a major threat to the survival of human race. I have no doubt that the Muslims will protest against this point of view, and as usual, will produce far- fetched and irrational evidence to prove that Islam advocates love and brotherhood of mankind. This type of sorcery has worked wonders for Muslim fundamentalists in the past, but with the dissemination of knowledge, it is difficult to cloud the truth with the magic of misinterpretation, marvel of memorization and mysticism of meaninglessness.
Islam has become a set of fundamentals which preach social segregation, hatred of non-Muslims and elimination of dissenters through dominance, death and destruction. These conclusions, no matter how true, cannot be palatable to the Muslims and therefore rank as fabrications, from their standpoint. I can do no better than quote from the Koran to decide the issue. Examine the following for yourself:
1. "Do not let non-Muslims enter mosques. They will go to hell." ( Repentance: 17 )
2. "O ye who believe! The non-Muslims are unclean. So let them not come near the Inviolable Place of Worship." (Repentance: 28)
3. "O ye who believe! Murder those of the disbelievers .... and let them find harshness in you." (Repentance: 123)
4. "Humiliate the non-Muslims to such an extent that they surrender and pay tribute." (Repentance: 29)
5. "O believers, do not treat your fathers and brothers as your friends, if they prefer unbelief to belief, whosoever of you takes them for friends, they are evil-doers." (Repentance: 20)
6. "Certainly, God is an enemy to the unbelievers." ( The Cow: 90 )
7. "God has cursed the unbelievers, and prepared for them a blazing hell." ( The Confederates 60 )
8. "Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends.... whoso does that belongs not to God." (The House of Imram: 60)
9. "O believers, do not make friends with the Jews and Christians; ..whoso of you makes them his friend is one of them." (The Table: 55)
10. "The believers indeed are brothers." ( Apartments: 10 )
11. "Moslems are hard against the unbelievers, merciful to one another." (Victory: 25)
A Muslim naturally believes in all such Koranic verses, which determine his social outlook and he becomes a narrow- minded sectarian. This psychological approach is the fountain of fundamentalism. It is a myth to say that Islam advocates good relationship with the People of the Book, that is, the Jews and Christians. What I have said at 9 above supports this statement. If this were not enough, one could refer the matter to HADITH, the sayings of the Prophet: Chapter LXXI of SAHIH MUSLIM clearly states that since Islam is the religion for the entire humanity, it abrogates all other faiths. To illustrate the point further, the hadith no.285 asserts that any Jew or Christian who has heard of Muhammad but does not believe in him, will become "one of the denizens of Hell-Fire."
The Islamic fundamentalism has become the foundation of Islamic morality. What makes it a threat to human survival is the fact that it is not a passive approach but advocates active aggression to impose itself on the unbelievers. Why? It gives several reasons for this. Let me quote two:
1. "Muslims are the best of all nations." (House of Imram: 110). Obviously, the best nation is superior to other people, who must wear the yoke of discrimination.
2. The Prophet Muhammad has been sent by God with "the religion of Truth, that He may cause it to prevail over all religions.." (Private Apartments: 28)
Simply stated it means that Muslims are superior to non- Muslims and have the birth-right to dominate them. This is why Islam calls itself DIN-E-GHALIB, the religion of dominance.
As every student of psychology knows, the purpose of any fundamentalism is to secure blind following from its adherents. This is possible only when they are conditioned to a certain object or goal which begins to rank as the sole purpose of their lives. As a result, the purpose begins to overrule the method of acquisition; whatever secures it is good and whatever obstructs it is bad. In a nutshell, people must stop thinking for themselves, especially in terms of morality. As the Marxists brainwashed people in the name of proletarianism and what it stood for, the Muslims have been conditioned to the person of the Prophet Muhammad, who is projected as the Saviour of his followers, having complete power to find them permanent residence in paradise, which is the abode of luxury, love making and lasciviousness. Since Muslims, in most countries are deprived, depressed and desolated, they are prepared to do anything to uphold the honour of the Prophet. For total obedience, they are at liberty to indulge in the most convenient morality such as mendacity, rape, murder, theft and treason without losing their chance of entering the paradise which has been absolutely guaranteed by their faith in the Prophet Muhammad.
A corollary of this belief is the oppression of non-Muslims by the Muslims, who deny human rights to the unbelievers for upholding the Islamic precepts in relation to the infidels. As a result, non-Muslims are discouraged to live in the Muslim countries even if they have originally belonged to their ancestors. It is justified on the precedent that the Prophet Muhammad expelled all Jews and unbelievers from Arabia. The modern example is that of Pakistan, the original home of the Hindus. There were millions of non-Muslims in this land before partition of India but as Pakistan came into being they all were thrown out through malice, mutilation and massacre. On the contrary, over 100,000,000 Muslims live in India and demand human rights! In Islamic countries, the non- Muslim minorities are either non-existent or very tiny indeed. This strangulation of human rights has become a part of the Islamic morality.
Since Islam is the Din-e-Ghalib i.e. the religion of dominance by God's will, Muslim minorities in non-Islamic countries do everything possible to harass, humiliate and harangue the host countries to practise their faith and culture. The "Muslim Parliament" of Great Britain is an example in point. In fact, this coterie of a few hundred Muslim fanatics, is a mockery of the British tolerance and hospitality. Its major role is to collect donations from its adherents, forbid Muslims to seek identification with Great Britain and practice all rules of Islamic intolerance towards the host community. There is no concept of parliamentary government in Islam, whatever, yet these hatred-mongers have set up this association in the Land of Magna Carta, dedicated to liberty. It is only a matter of time before the British government take notice of its evil influence on the British culture, causing problems also for those who have adopted the British ways and are proud to be sincere citizens of this land.
Use of violence for securing worldly goal and terrorization of non-Muslims are the pillar of Islamic morality. It is done through:
1. secular laws which are made in the name of Islam, and
2. the laws which Allah has framed and require no legislative authority and procedures.
Now, let us ponder over these two points:
1a. Islam declares Muhammad the greatest of all prophets and therefore reserves the highest reverence for him. This has become an article of faith. A Muslim, unwilling to force it on others, is considered deficient in belief. As a result, every Muslim looks for an opportunity to demonstrate the magnitude of his faith by molesting non-Muslims, and even fellow- believers who express less bigotry in this field. Politicians have seized upon this emotional condition of the Muslim mind to enhance their grip on power. For example, Pakistan has passed TOHEEN-E-RASUL ACT (Contempt of Prophet's Act), which prescribes death for insulting the Prophet Muhammad. Such an Act has never been passed in the world of Islam during the last fourteen centuries; nor is there any religious justification for it. In fact such a law in itself is a gross contempt of the Prophet, who wanted to be known as the Blessing for mankind. A person who is so conscious of himself cannot be the Blessing for lacking tolerance and understanding of the human behavior. Yet they have done it to terrorize the dissidents and non-Muslims. The treatment of the Qadiyanis and Christians in Pakistan, speak for itself. In fact, it is an ambassador of moral perversion which is an echo of the European Inquisition conducted by the Christian clerics to defend the holiness of their savior, Jesus Christ.
This Islamic exploitation of the believers has led to their moral bankruptcy, and this fact is well demonstrated by what happened in Pakistan during the middle of April, 1994:
Hafiz Sajjad Tariq of Gujranwala in Pakistan, accidentally dropped a copy of the Koran in a fireplace. As it caught fire, people of the locality became aflame with rage. Not caring that Sajjad was a pious Muslim devoted to exalt holiness of the Scripture (Koran), they alleged that he had desecrated the Word of God. As mullahs of the area heard of it, they instantly issued Fatwas of apostasy against Sajjad. Like hawks, the fundamentalists swooped down on him, each hoping that his blow would dispatch the victim to hell assuring him (the assailant) a seat in paradise. As they were hitting him, someone shouted that he was being dished out an un-Islamic punishment because he must be stoned to death. By then, they had broken his ribs and he was not able to walk. A gallant police officer intervened and locked him up with a view to saving him from mob-violence. As the news spread, a large crowd of frenzied Muslims appeared before the local police- station demanding his immediate release. The Police Inspector, instead of enforcing the law, fell for the temptation of establishing himself as the champion of Islam and handed Sajjad to the attackers. They started stoning him mercilessly and thereafter set his body on fire. If this were not enough, they tied his corpse to a powerful motor-cycle and dragged it through the streets for two hours! After a pious show of Islamic morality, they felt that they had done enough to avenge the honour of the Prophet whom the Koran had been revealed.
This type of Islamic morality is rampant, not only in the Islamic countries, but also in the lands where the Muslims have settled in sufficient numbers. To explain this point, I may quote Britain where I live. I wrote and published a book: "Eternity" in 1990. It challenges the basic concept of revelation, the foundation of prophethood. As the Muslim organizations heard about it, they individually and severally issued a fatwa condemning me to death. Neither have they given me a chance to explain myself before a properly constituted tribunal of justice nor have they accepted my challenge for a public debate. Its consequences have been painful to me and my family.
What I have stated above roughly delineates the Islamic morality in relation to legislated law. Now, I may briefly touch upon the second part of the issue i.e. the direct commands of Allah which are so evident that they need not be legislated:
2a. Jehad is one of them, and forms an integral part of the Islamic morality. It is an open behest of Allah to murder, pillage, rape and create widows and orphans for imposing Allah's will on the unbelievers, who are considered His worst enemies just for the "sin" of unbelief. Yet, Allah calls himself the Independent (SAMAD), All-Compassionate, All- Powerful and Creator of the whole universe!
If Allah does possess all these qualities, how can He sanction the destruction of innocent people? If He were so desperate for worship, being the All- Powerful, Compassionate, Creator, He would have created humankind in such a way that everyone was born with the belief suited to God.
Instead of delving into this mystery, I hasten to add that Jihad or violence is considered holy by Allah, who, in return for persecuting, pillaging and paralyzing the infidels declares:
"Allah has bought from the faithful themselves and their belongings against the gift of paradise; they fight in the way of Allah; they kill and are killed.." (Repentance: 110)
A HADITH ( the saying of the Prophet Muhammad ) declares: "Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords." (Sahih Bokhari, Ch. 22: 73 )
What is paradise? The Muslim scholars are usually embarrassed by this question and pretend that it is not physical but a condition of the mind. The above Koranic verse clearly states that it is a definite exchange i.e. offer of paradise for killing a non- Muslim or getting killed in the process of obeying this divine command. The paradise is the main temptation for practicing Islam. This is the reason that the Koran explains it well. Paradise is the description of the luxurious surroundings dwelt in by Houris and Ghilman. Houris are the most beautiful ever-young virgins with wide, flexing eyes and swelling bosoms. Ghilman are the immortal young boys, pretty like pearls, clothed in green silk and brocade an embellished with bracelets of silver.
Allah shall give every believing man no fewer than seventy houris and many ghilmans. To make sure that the lucky fellow can cope with them, Allah will increase his virility a hundred-fold! This is the ultimate goal of the Islamic morality, and it is why that the Muslims, who are usually depressed, are ready to practice convenient morality based on violence. Even more potent factor in this field is their staunch belief in the intercessory powers of the Prophet Muhammad, which means that he has the authority to accommodate his followers in paradise irrespective of what they may have done. I shall deal with this point in the next issue of "Liberty."
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Religion of What?
by Yashiko Sagamori
Every culture has its own definition of peace. Muslims, for instance, divide the world into two zones: Dar el Islam, which translates as the domain of Islam and encompasses the parts of the world ruled by Muslims, and Dar el Harb, which translates as the domain of war and comprises the rest of the world. They equate peace with Islam while designating everything outside it for conquest and destruction. Of course, it would only be destruction from our point of view; from theirs it would be bringing us into Dar el-Islam, the domain of peace. Actually, it's even better than that: they believe it would be bringing us back since the entire world belongs to their deity and every human being, beginning with Adam, comes into this world as a Muslim. As you can see, Muslims do not lie when they call their abominable superstition a religion of peace: according to their definition, it is. We find their definition unsuitable based on statistics rather than religious arguments. According to statistics, most Muslims who die a violent death are killed by other Muslims. I don't want their kind of peace either.
Peacemongers and Jihadeers, Part I by Yashiko Sagamori
From: MHD ROSLI BIN MOHD NORDIN MOHD NORDIN
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 8:40 AM
hello,i am rosli from Malaysia and i am a muslim.i had read what you had writen in the thinkisrael.com webpage.i totally disaggre the way you mention about us muslim.i think that you did not understand the true meaning of jihad.the best thing to describe islam is "islam is all about peace".the word islam itself mean peace. i want to give you a suggestion if you want to know islam better you must try to read the translation of the holy quran and observe it or you can log on to islamonline.net website to upgrade your knowledge about islam.ok may Allah give you guidance.
When someone wakes you up in the middle of the coldest, darkest night of the winter and complains how unbearable the heat of the sun has become, he is either calling you from halfway across the world or he is blind and sitting dangerously close to a blazing furnace.
When someone tells you in the year 2006 that Islam is all about peace, he can be one of many things. He can be a Jewish liberal looking at the world and the approaching Holocaust through the pink glasses of political correctness. He can be someone as ignorant and unwilling to learn as President Bush. He can be an unapologetic liar like Condoleezza Rice. He can be a ridiculously apologetic coward like Tony Blair. He can be a schizophrenic, because schizophrenics live in an alternate reality. And, last but not least, he can be a Muslim, because Dar el-Islam is an alternate reality.
If Islam is all about peace, then I would like you to explain to me why Sunni Iraqis and Shiite Iraqis, instead of uniting against American invaders, are murdering each other to the tune of several dozens a day.
If Israel is truly oppressing the so-called “Palestinians”, why are they, instead of uniting against it, are killing each other at a steadily accelerating rate?
Why did the war between Iran and Iraq in the 1980's claimed more than a million lives without benefiting either side?
Why has the war between Turkish Kurds and “real” Turks, both Muslim people, killed more than 30,000? How could Abdullah Ocalan, the Muslim leader of the Kurds, declare in 1992: “Even if 100,000 people die this year, our movement cannot be disrupted,” while knowing that every single one of that impressive number of people whose lives he so easily deemed expendable was a Muslim?
How did the combined efforts of Islamic Salvation Army and Armed Islamic Group result in a civil war in Algeria that produced 150 to 200 thousand Muslim casualties between 1991 and 2002?
And look at Mecca, the holiest place of Islam, during the hajj, the holiest event of a Muslim's life. Here is a brief (and, by far, incomplete) chronology of Muslims' peaceful piousness in the modern times:
1979 November 21: On the first day of the 15th Islamic century, a group of 300 students from the Theological University of Medina take control over the Holy Mosque of Mecca. They keep control for two weeks, when 63 are captured alive and the mosque is recovered. All occupants are executed.
1987 July 31: Riots by Iranian pilgrims. More than 400 people die.
1989 July 9: Two bombs kill 1 person. Shiites of Kuwait are accused, and 16 are executed.
1990 July 2: Stampede leads to 1402 people dead.
1994: A stampede kills 400 people.
1997 April 15: Fire kills 340 people.
2004 February 1: Stampede kills 244 people.
2006 January 13: More than 345 pilgrims die in a stampede near the Jamrat Complex in Mina.
I hope you noticed that I only listed a few of the most notorious cases of Muslim violence against Muslims. Those are not isolated episodes. They are part of an ongoing process that has accompanied Islam throughout its entire history. In fact, the absolute majority of Muslims who die a violent death are not killed by “infidels”: they are slaughtered by other Muslims. Therefore, if your definition of peace has anything at all in common with mine, Islam, contrary to your opinion, is not about peace at all. If you disagree, I will be grateful if you share your definition of peace with me.
Maybe it is about deep personal beliefs? Let's see. Islam is the only religion in the modern world that accepts forced conversions. Just a few months ago, two Western journalists were abducted in Gaza and held for ransom — also a uniquely Islamic practice. While in captivity, they were given a simple choice: convert to Islam or die. They converted. Not a single person of any authority in the entire Dar el-Islam has objected against that rape. And why would they? For 14 centuries Mohammad's followers have spread Islam by the sword. For 14 centuries that worked for them. Why stop now?
I am no hero myself. I have to admit that if I were offered the same choice, I would, most probably, choose life and repeat the shahadah after my tormentors. But how would those foreign sounds that are utterly meaningless to me, sounds that were forced out of me by the gun at my temple or a knife at my throat, change the way I feel towards Islam and everything it stands for? You can force someone to follow your rituals; you can even force someone to fight on your side. But can you force a person to believe or not to believe something? No more than you can force an Islamic country into democracy, even if the entire military might of the United States is at your disposal. No, dear Rosli, Islam has nothing to do with personal beliefs.
Maybe, Islam is all about truth? I doubt that, too. You must know that Sharia expressly forbids non-Muslims to bear witness against Muslims. This means that your religious courts, and, therefore, your religion, are not interested in truth but in the Muslim domination over the “infidel”.
They say: “Become Jews or Christians if ye would be guided (To salvation).”
In reality, unlike Christianity or Islam, Judaism does not declare salvation a monopoly of its followers. Jewish law explicitly states that a gentile will go to heaven if he or she abstains from committing the seven mortal sins; a Jew, in order to go to heaven, must follow 613 commandments, including the seven mandated for gentiles. That's why, when a person approaches a rabbi asking for conversion, the rabbi's duty is to explain to the petitioner that the conversion will endanger his chances for salvation. A person desiring to become a Jew must understand the responsibility and accept it willingly and knowingly. This alone, as you can see, makes a forced conversion to Judaism even theoretically impossible.
Whether the quotation above was a deliberate lie or the result of ignorance of the man you mistook for a prophet, it certainly prevents me from accepting the idea of divine inspiration behind the text.
Maybe, Islam is all about love? I don't think so either, because Islam is the only religion in the world whose followers routinely practice “honor killings” of members of their own families. It is also the only religion in the world that does not promise family members a reunion in the afterlife. Instead, it guarantees good Muslim men a free brothel for all eternity. It does not spell out the reward for virtuous women, but does specify that dead Muslims will be segregated by gender in their X-rated heaven. Wouldn't a loving husband prefer to spend eternity surrounded by his family rather than fornicating like a priapic rabbit? He would, unless, of course, the loving husband in question is Muslim.
Maybe, Islam is about high moral standards? Not really. Even if you decide to disregard the overwhelming corruption reigning in all Islamic countries, without a single exception, as a perversion of the true faith, you must know that wine, sexual pleasures, and everything else Islam declares taboo in this life, is promised in abundance in the next one. But if something is evil here, on our sinful earth, it must be even more evil in the pristine purity of heaven. Therefore, the wrongness of the act is not the reason for the prohibitions. What is then? Here's my guess. If you forever prevent perfectly normal people from having fun, from enjoying their lives, they will be easier to control, easier to turn into “martyrs”. As you must know, this works wonderfully well.
You must also know that in Muslim countries mullahs run prostitution rings by officiating temporary “marriages” between their customers and the hookers in full compliance with Sharia. You must have heard about Ayatollah Khomeini's fatwas detailing what a man should do to an infant he raped or to domestic animals subjected to a similar treatment.
Besides, even Mohammad himself didn't rely on the high moral standards of his followers. He is quoted as saying, “When a man and a woman are in the same room together, the third person in that room is the devil.” I do not guarantee the accuracy of the quote (to the best of my knowledge, it is not found in either the Koran or Hadith), but I do know that it reflects the customary Muslim attitude: a person who has an opportunity to do wrong is not expected to resist the temptation. Don't you think that such an attitude alone makes the average Muslim enormously more immoral than the average Western teenager who manages to spend a day of fun at the beach surrounded by half (or, rather, nine-tenth) naked females without ever being tempted to rape anyone?
Maybe Islam is about charity? No, because all your charities support terrorism. After the devastating tsunami of 2004, Dar el-Harb provided tens of times more aid to its mostly Muslim victims that Dar el-Islam did.
What is Islam about then? What has Mohammad brought into the world that was unknown before he declared himself a prophet? Monotheism was discovered by the Jews millennia before Mohammad. Worshipping a mortal instead of God was practiced by Christians centuries before Mohammad succeeded in turning himself into a bloodthirsty deity. What else is there?
Having read the Koran and the Hadith long before you suggested it to me, I must tell you that Muslim sacred texts are not the best way for an outsider to acquire a practical understanding of your religion. If I wanted to help you understand Nazism or Communism, I would never invite you to start with the Mein Kampf or, respectively, Das Kapital. Instead, I would ask you to look at the Nazi atrocities during World War II or at the Communist atrocities wherever Communists came to power. And if, having learned what Nazis and Communists do, you decided to learn how they justify their crimes, then reading their propaganda materials might help you. Otherwise, you don't need to dive head first into the cesspool, no matter how curious you are about the taste of its contents.
In order to understand Islam, one doesn't need to read the Koran. One only needs to take a careful, unprejudiced look at life in Islamic countries. Or, even better, at the purest, least corrupted by Western influence implementation of Islam in modern times. I think you would agree with me that the Taliban regime in Afghanistan was exactly such an implementation of Islam. Would you like to live in Afghanistan under the Taliban? Would you like to deprive the women in your family of all opportunities to go to school, to pursue a career, to walk in the streets, to be able to see a doctor when they become ill? Would you enjoy attending public executions? Would you like to take part in the stoning of an adulteress? Would you like to be told what clothes to wear, what length beard? Would you like the government to deprive you of the last vestiges of your privacy by insinuating itself into every aspect of your personal life?
As a Muslim, you probably would. But as a reasonable person you shouldn't expect people from other cultures to wish that upon themselves.
My own initial acquaintance with Islam began not with its literature, but with the experience of living in a Muslim country. I decided to read the Koran when I heard about the Islamic belief that God handed Moses not the Torah, but the Koran and that later the evil Jews maliciously rewrote the holy book. I began reading the Koran out of curiosity. I wanted to see the other vision of the Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. I was curious if Muslims had an analogue of the Psalms or the Song of Songs.
A few years before that, I was going through a period of fascination with Russian history and politics. Russia is the biggest and, in terms of its natural resources, arguably the richest country in the world. I wanted to know how the Russians had managed to turn themselves into one of the most miserable nations on the planet. I turned to Lenin for answers. I was hoping to find in his writings a monumental vision of greatness and the clues of mistakes that had prevented that greatness from happening. Instead, I found volumes of bickering with ideological opponents, minutiae of arguments that had ended decades before I was born and could interest nobody today.
My experience with the Koran was similar to that. Instead of a different vision of the world I found fuming anger against Jews and Christians and shallow syllogisms intending to prove that the Forefathers of the Jewish people were Muslims rather than Jews. Allah in that book sounded like an insecure chieftain desperately trying to solidify his power over people who were uncertain as to whether they should submit to his will — which is exactly the situation Mohammad was in when he undertok the project of writing the Koran. The book is full of promises to his followers and threats to the rest of the human race.
And here is the most important detail that sets the Koran aside from the Torah and the New Testament. Just as the Koran never mentions Jerusalem, it doesn't contain a single reference to the Ten Commandments. All religions I am familiar with define good and evil in terms of how the believer is expected to relate to other people, whether or not they belong to the same religion. For Jews and Christians, the Ten Commandments provide the most fundamental guidance in distinguishing between good and evil. What about the Muslims? Their only measure of good is the loyalty to their prophet.
Koran 3.110 states:
Ye are the best community that hath been raised up for mankind. Ye enjoin right conduct and forbid indecency; and ye believe in Allah.
Since the right conduct is a lie and forbidding indecency is pure hypocrisy, what is left? What exactly makes you “the best community that hath been raised up for mankind”? Has there ever been a Muslim Newton? Or a Muslim Shakespeare? Or a Muslim Mozart? Or a Muslim Mother Teresa? A few Muslim names that you can name, like al-Khwarimi, could shine only in the darkness of the Dark Ages. As soon as Dar el-Harb moved forward, Dar el-Islam found itself unable to produce even a single person of any global significance, except for an enormous variety of Qaddafis, Saddams, bin Ladens, Arafats, and other Hitlers of every imaginable magnitude.
One of the most respected Muslim leaders of modern times, the former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad of Malaysia, made a remarkable admission in his farewell speech:
We need guns and rockets, bombs and warplanes, tanks and warships for our defense. But because we are discouraged from learning of science and mathematics as giving us no merit for the afterlife, today we have no capacity to produce our own weapons for our defense. We have to buy our weapons from our detractors and enemies.
It is remarkable because it makes clear that one of the most respected Muslim leaders has no clue what motivates the people of Dar el-Harb. He would never believe that our apocalyptic (and, due to the cowardice of our leaders, absolutely useless) military might is nothing but a side effect of our insatiable curiosity about God's creation. He also inadvertently admitted that his religion is nothing but a cult of death.
And this is why I keep urging everybody who will listen to read the Koran and the Hadith, so they can see for themselves that Islam is not “just another religion” but an ideology of jihad, and jihad is not an internal strife of a Muslim for spiritual perfection, but genocide that's been going on for 14 centuries in the name of a false prophet.
And, by the way, the Arabic world Islam does not mean peace; it means submission. Can you tell the difference between the two?
Having said this all, I must add that I understand that your letter was sincere and inspired by good motives. Let me respond with a sincere suggestion. Try reading the Torah. Don't be afraid; it won't make you a Jew, just as listening to Bach won't make you a composer. But it might provide you with something you so desperately need: an alternative view of the universe.
May you find good guidance wherever you seek it.
This article above is presented as a public service.
It may be reproduced without charge, with attribution.
To read my other articles or to make a donation,
To be added to or removed from my mailing list,
please contact me at
© 2002—2006 Yashiko Sagamori. All rights reserved.
|December 24, 2006|
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
from Jihad Watch
An important overview of Muslim Brotherhood activity in the West from the European essayist Fjordman:
I do not have the time right now to include hyperlinks to every single piece of information stated here, but almost all of this information should be available online with a quick web search. Robert Spencer has dealt with the Muslim Brotherhood in a number of books, for instance in Onward Muslim Soldiers. I would also strongly recommend the recent book "Global Jihad: The Future in the Face of Militant Islam," by former Muslim Patrick Sookhdeo. Sookhdeo does excellent research, particularly regarding the systematic Islamization of Britain, but the same blueprints are used in other countries, too.
The Muslim Brotherhood, today widely regarded as the largest Islamic movement in the world, was founded by Hassan al-Banna in 1928. Its member groups are dedicated to the motto: "Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope."
Research analyst Lorenzo Vidino writes about The Muslim Brotherhood's Conquest of Europe: "Since the early 1960s, Muslim Brotherhood members and sympathizers have moved to Europe and slowly but steadily established a wide and well-organized network of mosques, charities, and Islamic organizations." Their ultimate goal "may not be simply 'to help Muslims be the best citizens they can be,' but rather to extend Islamic law throughout Europe and the United States. With moderate rhetoric and well-spoken German, Dutch, and French, they have gained acceptance among European governments and media alike. Politicians across the political spectrum rush to engage them whenever an issue involving Muslims arises or, more parochially, when they seek the vote of the burgeoning Muslim community. But, speaking Arabic or Turkish before their fellows Muslims, they drop their facade and embrace radicalism."
Moreover, "While the Muslim Brotherhood and their Saudi financiers have worked to cement Islamist influence over Germany's Muslim community, they have not limited their infiltration to Germany. Thanks to generous foreign funding, meticulous organization, and the naïveté of European elites, Muslim Brotherhood-linked organizations have gained prominent positions throughout Europe. In France, the extremist Union des Organisations Islamiques de France (Union of Islamic Organizations of France) has become the predominant organization in the government's Islamic Council. In Italy, the extremist Unione delle Comunita' ed Organizzazioni Islamiche in Italia (Union of the Islamic Communities and Organizations in Italy) is the government's prime partner in dialogue regarding Italian Islamic issues."
The irony, according to Vidino, is that "Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna dreamed of spreading Islamism throughout Egypt and the Muslim world. He would never have dreamed that his vision might also become a reality in Europe."
Al-Banna may not have believed that to be possible in the short run, but he did dream of conquering areas formerly under Islamic rule. German historian Egon Flaig quotes Banna as saying: "We want the flag of Islam to fly over those lands again who were lucky enough to be ruled by Islam for a time, and hear the call of the muezzin praise God. Then the light of Islam died out and they returned to disbelief. Andalusia, Sicily, the Balkans, Southern Italy and the Greek islands are all Islamic colonies which have to return to Islam's embrace. The Mediterranean and the Red Sea have to become internal seas of Islam, as they used to be."
One of the Brotherhood's first pioneers in Europe was Sa'id Ramadan. According to the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), Sa'id Ramadan, who was al-Banna's son-in-law, joined the Muslim Brotherhood in his youth. At the age of 20, Hassan al-Banna chose Sa'id to be his personal secretary and sent him to Palestine to establish a branch of the movement there. After World War II, when Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini returned to Palestine, Sa'id Ramadan helped him to form military groups for the struggle against the Jews. Al-Husseini was an active accomplice in the Holocaust and visited leading Nazis repeatedly. Terrorist organization Hamas is the Palestinian branch of the MB today.
After Hassan al-Banna's assassination in 1949, Sa'id Ramadan returned to Egypt and became a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood. In 1954 he went to Jerusalem with another leading Brotherhood member, Sayyid Qutb, in order to participate in the World Islamic Conference, and was elected conference secretary-general.
In the late 1950s, Sa'id Ramadan managed to persuade Saudi Prince Faisal to help him establish Islamic centers in Europe's main capitals. In 1958, he settled in Geneva and there founded the Islamic Center, which became the headquarters of Muslim Brotherhood members expelled from Egypt. In 1964, he opened Islamic centers in London and Munich, and became the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood abroad.
The oil-rich kingdom of Saudi Arabia has for years granted an influx of money to the powerful Islamic Center of Geneva, Switzerland, now run by Sa'id's son Hani Ramadan. He was made infamous by a 2002 article in the French daily Le Monde defending the stoning of adulterers to death. His brother Tariq Ramadan, a career "moderate Muslim," later called for a "moratorium" on stoning. In 2008 it was announced that Hani Ramadan would receive SFr255,000, the equivalent of two years' salary, in damages from the canton of Geneva. He was sacked in 2004 after defending the stoning of persons guilty of adultery. An appeal commission of the education department sided with Ramadan, annulling the termination. The government also agreed to pay Ramadan's legal fees.
It was the Muslim Brotherhood's spiritual leader Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a follower of Hassan al-Banna in his youth, who directed the prayer at Sa'id Ramadan's funeral in 1995, as Tariq Ramadan proudly reports. Sa'id Ramadan had close contacts with Brotherhood member Sayyid Qutb, whose writings have inspired countless Jihadists around the world, for instance terrorist leader Osama bin Laden. According to writer Paul Berman, Ramadan "not only knew Qutb; he was, at the crucial moment, Qutb's most important supporter in the world of the Egyptian intellectuals. Said Ramadan was the editor who got Qutb started on what became his most important work."
According to Dr. Ahmad Al-Rab'i, former Kuwaiti minister of education, "The beginnings of all of the religious terrorism that we are witnessing today were in the Muslim Brotherhood's ideology of takfir [accusing other Muslims of apostasy]. Sayyid Qutb's book Milestones was the inspiration and the guide for all of the takfir movements that came afterwards. The founders of the violent groups were raised on the Muslim Brotherhood, and those who worked with Bin Laden and Al-Qa'ida went out under the mantle of the Muslim Brotherhood."
Tariq Ramadan, the grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, says decadent Europe will give way to an Islamized Europe. In the 21st century, "The West will begin its new decline, and the Arab-Islamic world its renewal" and ascent to seven centuries of world domination after seven centuries of decline. "Only Islam can achieve the synthesis between Christianity and humanism, and fill the spiritual void that afflicts the West." All good people are implicitly Muslims "because true humanism is founded in Koranic revelations." In a clash with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Dutch-Somali critic of Islam, Ramadan said it was wrong to say that Europe had a Judeo-Christian past. "Islam is a European religion. The Muslims came here after the first and second world wars to rebuild Europe, not to colonise."
Danish theologian Kirsten Sarauw writes in her article A Declaration of War Against the People of Europe that in 2007 in Vienna, Austria, a conference was held about so-called Euro-Islam.
Prominent Muslim delegates formulated a strategic vision of a Europe dominated by Islam. Mustafa Ceric, Grand Mufti of Bosnia, envisioned an "upcoming Islamic era." The conference was in agreement about the first and foremost goal, namely the introduction of religious Islamic jurisprudence (sharia) in Europe, "in the beginning at least as a parallel system alongside national laws in European states." As to the real meaning of sharia, they all agreed to avoid publicity as far as possible. According to Sarauw, Tariq Ramadan proclaimed that the real intentions of this work must be concealed from the general public.
In 2007 it was announced that Tariq Ramadan was to hold the Sultan of Oman chair of Islamology at the University of Leiden. Leiden is the oldest university in the Netherlands, founded in the sixteenth century by Prince William of Orange, the leader of the Dutch struggle for independence. Dutch Education and Culture Minister Ronald Plasterk said that he did not object to Ramadan's appointment. Meanwhile, the Amsterdam city council, dominated by the Dutch Labour Party which receives many Muslim votes, developed teaching material warning school children against the opinions of Dutch Islam critic Geert Wilders.
The European Council for Fatwa and Research, headed by Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader Yusuf al-Qaradawi, is working on a Muslim Constitution for Europe that will be above national legislation. According to Tina Magaard from the University of Aarhus, behind these ambitions "lies decades of work." Islamic groups have for years aimed at establishing their control over the Muslim communities, and in some cases have won official recognition from government bodies. According to Magaard, "The Imams and Islamists consider the cooperation with the state institutions a transfer of power. Now it is they who rule."
Former Muslim Dr. Patrick Sookhdeo, author of the excellent book "Global Jihad – The future in the face of Militant Islam," warns that the Islamization going on in European cities is not happening by chance. It "is the result of a careful and deliberate strategy by certain Muslim leaders which was planned in 1980 when the Islamic Council of Europe published a book called Muslim Communities in Non-Muslim States." The instructions told Muslims to get together into viable communities, set up mosques, community centres and Islamic schools. To resist assimilation, they must group themselves geographically in areas of high Muslim concentration. According to Sookhdeo, the ultimate goal is Islamic rule in Europe.
Patrick Poole describes how discussion of a document called "The Project" so far has been limited to the top-secret world of Western intelligence communities. Only through the work of an intrepid Swiss journalist, Sylvain Besson, has information regarding The Project finally been made public. It was found in a raid of a luxurious villa in Campione, Switzerland on November 7, 2001. The target of the raid was Youssef Nada, who has had active association with the Muslim Brotherhood for more than 50 years.
Included in the documents seized was a 14-page plan written in Arabic and dated December 1, 1982, which outlined a 12-point strategy to "establish an Islamic government on earth" – identified as The Project. According to testimony given to Swiss authorities by Nada, the unsigned document was prepared by "Islamic researchers." It represents a flexible, multi-phased, long-term approach to the "cultural invasion" of the West.
Some of its recommendations include:
• Using deception to mask the intended goals of Islamic actions
• Building extensive social networks of schools, hospitals and charitable organizations
• Involving ideologically committed Muslims in institutions on all levels in the West, including government, NGOs, private organizations
• Instrumentally using existing Western institutions until they can be put into service of Islam
• Instituting alliances with Western "progressive" organizations that share similar goals.
As Patrick Poole says, "What is startling is how effectively the Islamist plan for conquest outlined in The Project has been implemented by Muslims in the West for more than two decades."
Included in this work was the powerful Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Sylvain Besson and Scott Burgess note the striking similarities between Qaradawi's publication, Priorities of the Islamic Movement in the Coming Phase and The Project. Qaradawi is backed by Saudi money and founded the major English language website IslamOnline, which has several hundred full-time employees and serves as an international outlet for his teachings. He is also leader of the European Council for Fatwa and Research, which spreads its rulings on sharia-related matters to mosques across Europe. He is based in Qatar, home to the influential Arabic satellite TV channel Al Jazeera, where he runs the popular program "Sharia and Life." The intellectual Dr. Khaled Shawkat warns that Al Jazeera "has been hijacked" by the MB "to the extent that three or four Muslim Brotherhood members sometimes appear on a single news program."
Yusuf al-Qaradawi was an important figure during the Muhammad cartoons riots in 2006 and was indirectly responsible for attacks against the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Syria. According to Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld and Alyssa A. Lappen, "Clearly, the riots in Denmark and throughout the world were not spontaneous, but planned and organized well in advance by Islamist organizations that support the MB, and with funding mostly from Saudi Arabia." The purpose was to impose sharia-style restrictions on free speech on Western nations.
Ehrenfeld and Lappen state that the Muslim Brotherhood and its offspring organizations employ the Flexibility strategy: "This strategy calls for a minority group of Muslims to use all 'legal' means to infiltrate majority-dominated, non-Muslim secular and religious institutions, starting with its universities. As a result, 'Islamized' Muslim and non-Muslim university graduates enter the nation's workforce, including its government and civil service sectors, where they are poised to subvert law enforcement agencies, intelligence communities, military branches, foreign services, and financial institutions."
Douglas Farah writes about the largely successful efforts by Islamic groups in the West to buy large amounts of real estate. Some groups are signing agreements to guarantee that they will only sell the land to other Muslims. The Brotherhood, particularly, is active in investments in properties and businesses across Europe, laying the groundwork for the future network that will be able to react rapidly and with great flexibility in case of another attempted crackdown on the group's financial structure. Most of the money comes from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
According to Farah, the governments of Europe and the United States continue to allow these groups to flourish and seek for the "moderate" elements that can be embraced as a counter-balance to the "radical" elements: "We do not have a plan. They do. History shows that those that plan, anticipate and have a coherent strategy usually win. We are not winning."
According to journalist Helle Merete Brix, Muhammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, the ruler of Dubai, aided by Saudi Arabia, gives large amounts of petrodollar to various organizations at the forefront of the Islamization of Europe, such as the European Council for Fatwa and Research headed by Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Qaradawi has publicly boasted that "Islam will return to Europe as a conqueror" and that Muslims will conquer Europe and the United States.
Former CIA director R. James Woolsey estimates that the Saudis have spent nearly $90 billion since the mid-1970s to export their ideology into Muslim and non-Muslim countries alike. That may well be a conservative estimate. Since the spike in oil prices following the embargo/financial Jihad in 1973, Arab and Muslim states have received trillions of dollars from the sale of oil and gas, probably the greatest transfer of wealth in human history. A significant portion of this money has been used to buy an army of hirelings and apologists in non-Muslim countries, as well as on financing the global Jihad.
Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal bin Abdul Aziz Al-Saud, a member of the Saudi Royal Family, is an international investor ranked among the ten richest persons in the world. In 2005, Bin Talal bought 5.46% of voting shares in News Corp, the parent of Fox News. In December 2005 he boasted about his ability to change what viewers see. Covering the Jihad riots in France that fall, Fox ran a banner saying: "Muslim riots." According to Talal, "I picked up the phone and called Murdoch... (and told him) these are not Muslim riots, these are riots out of poverty. Within 30 minutes, the title was changed from Muslim riots to civil riots."
Harvard University and Georgetown University have received $20 million donations from Prince bin Talal to finance Islamic studies. Martin Kramer, the author of "Ivory Towers on Sand: The Failure of Middle Eastern Studies in America," said: "Prince Alwaleed knows that if you want to have an impact, places like Harvard or Georgetown, which is inside the Beltway, will make a difference."
Georgetown said it would use the gift to expand its Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding. The leaders of the Center, renamed to Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, say it now will be used to put on workshops regarding Islam, addressing U.S. policy towards the Muslim world, addressing Muslim citizenship and civil liberties, and developing exchange programs for students from the Muslim world.
Georgetown professor John Esposito, founding director of the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, has, probably more than any other academic, contributed to downplaying the global Jihadist threat. Kramer states that during the 1970s, Esposito had prepared his thesis under his Muslim mentor Ismail R. Faruqi, a Palestinian theorist of the "Islamization of knowledge." During the first part of his career, Esposito never studied or taught at a major Middle East center. In the 80s, he published a series of favorable books on Islam. In 1993, Esposito arrived at Georgetown, and has later claimed the status of "authority" in the field.
Journalist Stanley Kurtz has demonstrated how the Saudis have managed to infiltrate the US education system and influence what American school children are taught about Islam and the Middle East, not just at the university level but also at lower levels.
Egyptian author Tarek Heggy warns that the Muslim Brotherhood "opposes the notion of a state based on democratic institutions, calling instead for an Islamic government based on the Shura (consultative assembly) system, veneration of the leader and the investiture of a Supreme Guide. In this, they are close to the model established by the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in Iran. (…) The Brotherhood calls for a constitutional and legal system based on the principles of Shari'a, including cruel corporal punishments in the penal code (stoning, lashing, cutting off the hands of thieves, etc.)."
Despite this, Robert Leiken and Steven Brooke published an article in Foreign Affairs about the "moderate" Muslim Brotherhood, arguing that the group has "rejected global Jihad" and "embraces democracy." Several US Democratic members of Congress met with the head of the Brotherhood's parliamentary bloc at the home of the U.S. ambassador to Egypt, despite that fact that the Egyptian MB has spawned several terrorist movements.
In a memo, the US State Department told its embassy in Cairo to launch a dialogue with religious groups because clashes with them would incite more attacks against US interests. They advised Washington to pressure the Egyptian government into allowing the MB to play a larger role in Egypt's political landscape. There are signs that American authorities are reaching out to the Brotherhood. Steven Stalinsky, the executive director of the Middle East Media Research Institute, warns that "A lack of knowledge about the Muslim Brotherhood is evident on the part of U.S. officials who are now cozying up to the organization."
As Youssef Ibrahim of the New York Sun comments, "For years, the Soviet Union benefited from those Vladimir Lenin is said to have dubbed 'the useful idiots of the West' — reporters, scholars, leftists, and assorted romantics who said the Soviet system of totalitarianism was not so bad." He argues that the Brotherhood is now taking over this role. Ibrahim is tired of the silence from the Muslim majority: "In Islam, 'silence is a sign of acceptance,' as the Arabic Koranic saying goes. (…) The question that hangs in the air so spectacularly now — particularly as England has been confronted once again by British Muslims plotting to kill hundreds — is this: What exactly are the Europeans waiting for before they round up all those Muslim warriors and their families and send them back to where they came from?"
The current leader of the MB, Mohammad Mahdi Akef, called on its members to serve its global agenda, declaring "I have complete faith that Islam will invade Europe and America." On its English website, the Brotherhood professes moderation and praises Multiculturalism as a way to spread Islam. However, on their Arabic website, Akef in February 2007 reassured his followers that "the Jihad will lead to smashing Western civilization and replacing it with Islam which will dominate the world." In the event that Muslims cannot achieve this goal in the near future, "Muslims are obliged to continue the Jihad that will cause the collapse of Western civilization and the ascendance of the Muslim civilization on its ruins."
Hassan al-Banna founded the Muslim Brotherhood in 1928 with the vision of restoring the Islamic Caliphate. There are signs that his disciple Yusuf al-Qaradawi hasn't given up this goal. In an interview with German weekly magazine Der Spiegel, Qaradawi said: "Islam is a single nation, there is only one Islamic law and we all pray to a single God. Eventually such a nation will also become political reality. But whether that will be a federation of already existing states, a monarchy or an Islamic republic remains to be seen."
Dr. Shaker Al-Nabulsi, a Jordanian intellectual, states that: "The Caliphate has remained unchanged from 632 through 2004 – it has kept its primitive, simple tribal form (the elite's allegiance to the sovereigns) – an un-democratic structure, despotic, and bloody except for a brief period of 12 years during the rule of Abu Baker and Omar Bin Al-Khattab [the first and second Caliphs]. (...) Since the time of [the Umayyad Caliph] Mu'awiya Ibn Abi Sufyan through the last Ottoman Sultan, (that is from the year 661 through the year 1924), the Islamic Caliphate was drenched with blood, and ruled by fist and sword – and even today the situation is the same in most of the Arab world."
Nabulsi quotes al-Qaradawi as saying: "'There are those who maintain that democracy is the rule of the people, but we want the rule of Allah.' Such ideas] are a call for the Rule of Allah, discussed by Sayyid Qutb in his book 'The Milestones.' [Qutb] borrowed this idea from Pakistani intellectual Abu Al-'Ala Al-Mawdudi, who introduced the theory that authority is Allah's, not the people's, and that the sovereign is none other than Allah's secretary and His representative on earth."
In one essay, al-Qaradawi writes that: "Secularism may be accepted in a Christian society but it can never enjoy a general acceptance in an Islamic society.
Christianity is devoid of a shari`ah or a comprehensive system of life to which its adherents should be committed." However, "as Islam is a comprehensive system of worship (`ibadah) and legislation (Shari`ah), the acceptance of secularism means abandonment of Shari`ah," and "the call for secularism among Muslims is atheism and a rejection of Islam. Its acceptance as a basis for rule in place of Shari`ah is downright riddah [apostasy]."
The adoption of secular laws and equality for Muslims and non-Muslims amounts to apostasy. Harsh words from a man who has voiced support for the traditional sharia death penalty for those leaving Islam.
According to the major website Islam Online, which is owned by Yusuf al-Qaradawi and sponsored by rich Arabs, "Islam is not a religion in the common, distorted meaning of the word, confining its scope only to the private life of man. By saying that it is a complete way of life, we mean that it caters for all the fields of human existence. In fact, Islam provides guidance for all walks of life — individual and social, material and moral, economic and political, legal and cultural, national and international."
Famed historian Bernard Lewis in 2007 told The Jerusalem Post that Islam could soon be the dominant force in Europe. He warned that this Islamization could be assisted by "immigration and democracy." It is a well-established fact that Muslims vote overwhelmingly for left-wing parties all over Europe.
According to journalist Salam Karam, "For the Muslim Brotherhood, Sweden is in many ways an ideal country, [and it] shares the ideals of the Social Democrats in their view of the welfare society. Leading figures in Muslim congregations are also active within the Social Democratic [Party], and have very good relations with Sweden's Christian Social Democrats – Broderskapsrörelsen. The Social Democrats have, in turn, and perhaps as thanks for the support they receive from the mosque leadership, shown a tendency to shy away from the fact that there is extremism in some of our mosques. This has given the Muslim Brotherhood the freedom to force its ideology upon [the mosque's worshippers]."
Writer Nima Sanandaji states that "The Social Democratic party has started fishing for votes with the help of radical Muslims clergies." They have been working with the influential Muslim leader Mahmoud Aldebe, president of Sweden's Muslim Association, which is widely believed to be inspired by the Muslim Brotherhood. In 1999 Aldebe proposed that sharia – the Islamic law – be introduced in Sweden. The Social Democrat Ola Johansson has referred to the book Social Justice in Islam by the Jihadist ideologue Sayyid Qutb as proof that the Socialist ideology could find common ground with Islamic ideas. After the elections in 2002, the Muslim Association sent a congratulation letter to the re-elected Social Democratic Prime Minister Göran Persson, hoping that his party would work for implementing some of the sharia demands of the Association in the future. In 2007, the Social Democrats launched a formalized network for cooperation with Muslims, after they lost the elections the year before.
Walid al-Kubaisi, a Norwegian of Iraqi origins and a critic of sharia supporters, believes Yusuf al-Qaradawi is more dangerous than terrorist leader Osama bin Laden: "In Europe, the Muslim Brotherhood discovered a unique opportunity: Democracy. The democratic system leaves room for freedom of religion and freedom of speech, and finances religious communities and religious organizations. This has been utilized by the Muslim Brotherhood to infiltrate the Muslim communities, recruit members and build the Islamist networks that have become so visible lately." Whereas bin Laden uses bombs, al-Qaradawi exploits democracy as a Trojan horse. The Brotherhood gets their activities financed from Germany, Britain etc. They gain recognition and infiltrate the democratic system.
According to Walid al-Kubaisi, the journalist Dr.Osama Fawzi has revealed that many of al-Qaradawi's trips to Western countries are for the purpose of receiving medical aid and treatment for impotence because he is married to a girl 60 years younger than himself. Kubaisi, who writes Arabic fluently, sent an email to Qaradawi's website, asking whether it was legal according to Islamic law to marry a nine-year-old girl. He got a "yes" in reply.
Muhammad himself, according to Islamic sources, married his wife Aisha when she was six years old and consummated the marriage when she was eight or nine. Since he is the perfect example to emulate for Muslims for time eternity, this is still legal in Islamic law today: Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64
Narrated 'Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).
Yusuf al-Qaradawi has been hailed as a "moderate Muslim" by people such as London's Mayor Ken Livingstone, who represents the British Labour Party. Many Muslims voted for the Labour Party in previous elections, and London has a large and growing Muslim population. The cleric visited the UK in 2004, where he was welcomed by Livingstone, and chaired the annual meeting of the European Council of Fatwa and Research at London's City Hall. In January 2008, prominent Muslims pledged to back Ken Livingstone as Mayor of London during the elections in May 2008. A statement praised Livingstone for his support of a Multicultural society and for protecting Muslim communities against Islamophobia, and said that "We pledge to continue our support for the mayor on all levels possible in order to secure his staying in office for a third term." Among the 63 signatories was Tariq Ramadan.
In February 2008, al-Qaradawi was refused a visa to enter to the UK following pressure from British Conservatives. The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) said that it deplored the decision, while the British Muslim Initiative (BMI) described the decision to bar al-Qaradawi as "an unwarranted insult to British Muslims." Yusuf al-Qaradawi has called for the death penalty for homosexuality, for the destruction of the state of Israel, has defended suicide attacks and preaches that husbands should beat disobedient wives. He was also indirectly responsible for the torching of the Damascus embassies of NATO member states Denmark and Norway during the Muhammad cartoon riots in 2006.
Posted by Robert at February 12, 2008 3:01 AM
Monday, February 11, 2008
A Letter to the Germans from one who cares for the well-being of the German nation and of all of Europe:
Moslems are not the Jews!
Some of you might not be too comfortable with what happened to the Jews of Europe some sixty-odd years ago. You are perhaps concerned about offending the sensibilities of another group in your midst--let me warn you: Don't be! Do not bend over backwards to accomodate Islamics. They will eat you alive!
You see my dear German friends: The MOSLEMS ARE NOT LIKE THE JEWS. Islam is NOT A RELIGION like the one the Jews practice, quietly without infringing on anybody's rights.
Islam is an ideology that demands all othes knuckle under to it. They--the Islamics (I like that term it's sort of a contraction of Islam and clerics--get it? Islamics)--the Islamics are not like Jews. Islamics make demands: they want this, they want that, they want head scarves obligatory for all females, not only Islamic ones. They want mosques everywhere, blaring out the muezzin's call to prayer to the faithful, so foreign to European ears.
Islamics would prefer pork were not sold or eaten, it offends them. They do not want women wearing revealing clothes (it might excite the oh-so-pure-in-thought Moslem males and cause them to lose control and --well--you know what they do then).
But they demand. They are insulted. Their prophet is insulted. Their pride is insulted.
German, do not feel bad about not giving in to any--to all--of their demands for apologies for not observing Islamic customs yourselves.
Stand up to them. These are not Jews that you may want to handle with kid gloves because of memories that are not quite comfortable yet.
Do not coddle the Islamics to make up for what was done by prior generations to the Jews.
No. Islamics are not Jews and you can--you should stand up to them. Refuse their demands. Who are they, these foreign "Asylum seekers" and what have you, to make demands on the citizens of the country that took them in?
They should be grateful for what you have done for them, but they are not. They threaten, they whine, they rage, they want you to cringe,
You see, my dear Germans, they are not Jews. What Jews would have tried to intimidate the citizen of their host country?
Islamics want you to be afraid of them, to fear their rage, their threats of throat slittings and head off-choppings (abzuhacken). They want you to fold up and let Eurabia become the reality not the goal. Eurabia now! They want. "We will get it, never you fear. We will outbreed you. we will have you living under our 'protection.'" (or not at all.)
Germans, don't you see: These are not the Jews about you might have an uneasy conscience. Don't worry, you can resist them. Do not let them play on your perhaps subconscious feelings
By being so sensitive to the sensibilities of the Islamics, you are not being kind to the memory of the Jews that not only made no demands, certainly did not try to strike fear in your hearts , spoke your language fluently, contributed to your literature even, your music, your art, and did not insist that their laws and customs be followed by Germans.
Whence comes your reluctance, Germans, to stand up to those who refuse to be part of you but want you to become part of them or be their "Untermenschen?"
Well, from a Moslem himself you might be surprised to learn. A Moslem who dare not use his name nor reveal himself in the country that accepted him and treated him as a human being: one of your fellow European countries, Holland.
Here is what he writes:
"There they stand, the Dutch with their completely justified and without doubt noble striving to dissociate themselves as far away as possible from Hitler's ideology. Completely blind to the fact that their path circles back to the other end at the Jews (with all due respect). The poor devils continue to misunderstand that a choice isn't necessarily between the Nazis or the Jews, predator or prey, oppressor or victim, but that there is an alternative, a third road, which is save yourself and guarantee the continuance of your own culture and your own country. It's simply this one, tiny misunderstanding, that will make the Dutch go down in history as the people who thought so deeply about a nightmare from the past that they ended up becoming that nightmare."
- Mohammed Rasoel
vom dem Buch
The Downfall of the Netherlands
['De ondergang van Nederland']
Land of the Naive Fools
by Mohammed Rasoel [or Rasool]
Translation courtesy of Faust
The Downfall of the Netherlands('De ondergang van Nederland') Land of the Naive Fools by Mohammed Rasoel
So, you see, my dear Germans, do not make the mistake that he accuses the Netherlanders (die Hollaender) of having made. Do not make amends for what happened to the Jews of Europe of yesteryear by knuckling under to the Islamics of today.
[Please, my Dear Germans, remember the valiant Mohammed Rasoel's admonition:
["save yourself and guarantee the continuance of your own culture and your own country" ]
Remember what the Danes said to the Islamics that threated and demanded after the cartoons appeared in Denmark.
If you cannot recall, let me refresh your memory:
After the Mohammed Cartoons, the Danes begged the Islamics's pardon for having offended them. Their apology is non pareil--without parallel-- in the annals of European-Islamic relations. And here it is in all its simple beauty:
The Excuse of the Danes for the Cartoons that offended the sensibilities of the Islamics in Denmark first and of course of all Islamics in the world, who apparently are always waiting for an incident that they can pounce upon and give vent to their inborn rage.
(If you have seen this before, bear with me please. Reread the the abject apology of the Danes to the Islamics.)
Here it is:
(Auch gut fuer die muslime der ganzen Welt die in unsern Laendern uns das Blut aussaugen)
We´re sorry we gave you shelter when war drove you from your home country....
We´re sorry we took you in when others rejected you....
We´re sorry we gave you the opportunity to get a good education....
We´re sorry we gave you food and a home when you had none....
We´re sorry we let you re-unite with your family when your homeland was no longer safe...
We´re sorry we never forced you to work while WE paid all your bills....
We´re sorry we gave you almost FREE rent,phone,internet,car and school for your 10 kids...
We´re sorry we build you Mosques so you could worship your religion in our Christian land...
We´re sorry we never forced you to learn our language after staying 30 years!...
And so....from all Danes to the entire Muslim world, we just wanna say:
(This apology also applies to all the Islamics of the world that have been sucking the life-blood from the nations that gave them asylum, or shelter, and welcomed them as "new citizens.")
--from the Book "Hurra, wir kapitulieren" by Henryk M. Broder
To be certain that all Germans, whether they are proficient in English or not understand this abject apology from the deeply sorry Danes, it is reprinted in their native language, in German, here:
Es tut uns leid, dass wir euch aufgenommen haben, als andere euch ablehnten...
Es tut uns leid, dass wir euch die Gelegenheit gaben, einen gute Ausbildung zu erhalten...
Es tut uns leid, dass wir euch Essen und ein Zuhause gaben, als Ihr keines von beiden hattet...
Es tut uns leid, dass wir eure Familie nachkommen ließen, als eure Heimatländer nicht mehr sicher waren...
Es tut uns leid, dass wir euch nie zur Arbeit gezwungen haben, während wir alle eure Rechnungen bezahlt haben...
Es tut uns leid, dass wir euch in unseren Sozialwohnungen wohnen ließen, euch Telefone, Internet, Autos und Schulbildung für eure zehn Kinder gaben...
Es tut uns leid, dass wir Euch erlaubt haben Eure Moscheen in unserem christlichen Land zu bauen, damit Ihr Eurem Glauben nachgehen könnt...
Es tut uns leid, dass wir Euch in den 30 Jahren die Ihr bei uns lebt, nie gezwungen haben, unsere Sprache zu lernen...
Deshalb, ...von allen Dänen an die gesamte moslemische Welt, nur ein einziges:
[es ist schwer die letzten zwei Worte auf Deutsch zu uebersetzen. Villeicht kann mir jemand damit helfen. Danke sehr.]