News: Luton Protestors Claiming Benefits

Ahhh yes, the British government continues to fund the domestic jihad against civil society. Congratulations on yet another own goal for the English side.

The mosque, with its distinctive golden dome dominating the skyline, is the most visible symbol of Islamic life in the town. It was also one of seven Muslim centres in Luton chosen to receive Home Office funding last year for a project called 'Preventing Violent Extremism'.

So far, £200,000 has been handed out via grants from the council. Another £400,000 has been set aside to capture the 'hearts and minds' of young Muslims.

All that money really seems to be paying off.

One in five of Luton's 200,000 population is Muslim. But in the Bury Park district, where Luton Central Mosque is situated, the figure is much higher. Indeed, the original indigenous white population has all but disappeared from these back-to-back terraces near the Kenilworth Road football stadium.

Bury Park has effectively become a town within a town, with its own madrasah (faith school), Islamic primary school and high street, where the local butcher has been replaced by the halal store and the corner shop by a Muslim grocery. Boutiques now sell Day-Glo saris and other traditional Asian clothes.

No shocker there. Separation from the Kuffar is important as the Qur'an says:

Qur'an 5:51

"O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people."

And it gets better:

Recently, Holocaust memorial ceremonies attended by many moderate Muslims were among the events the extremist group tried to disrupt. Almost all of the fanatics, according to the Muslim leader at the mosque, are on the dole or claiming benefits of some kind.

Can anyone say Jizay? Yes that's right, as of late Muslim leaders have popularized the view that claiming benefits is one way of collecting the jizya. A tax levied on the indigenous non-Muslims of lands conquered by Muslims so that they will not be harmed or killed. Here is what the Qur'an has to say about levying the jizya on the filthy kuffar:

Qur'an 9:29

"Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low."

"Brought low" is the key term here. And of course the dhimmis (those required to pay the jizya) were to be smacked on the back of the neck by Muslims so that they would remember their "low" status. A big smack on the neck of the British taxpayer in Luton.

The Story:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1161855/Britons-HATE-Britain-The-Muslim-extremists-hell-bent-segregation-integration.html

Is Islam a Form of Fascism?

Fascism:

"A governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism."

I had the extremely unpleasant occasion to have an exchange with the archetypal self hating useful idiot who busied himself explaining, in sanctimonious fashion, that Islam is nothing like fascism and if we just showed Muslims more respect terrorism and such would simply evaporate. However useless the statement, this self flagellator did get me thinking about how Islam is, precisely, like fascism.

I will add yet another definition of fascism, from my beloved Wikipedia:

Fascism is a radical, authoritarian nationalist ideology that aims to create a single-party state with a government led by a dictator who seeks national unity and development by requiring individuals to subordinate self-interest to the collective interest of the nation or race. Fascist movements promote violence between nations, political factions, and races as part of a social Darwinist and militarist stance that views violence between these groups as a natural and positive part of evolution. In the view of these groups being in perpetual conflict, fascists believe only the strong can survive by being healthy, vital, and have an aggressive warrior mentality by conquering, dominating, and eventually eliminating people deemed weak and degenerate.

If we take the above definition we can see that Islam is in fact a fascist enterprise. Namely that istseeks an authoritarian single party state. Islam demands the institution of Shariah, and that the leader of such a state would be the "shadow of god on earth", meaning that he would carry out the political and military aspects of the Islamic state (while the clerics would administer Islamic justice), meaning he would be amir al-mu'mineen (Commander of the Faithful), and would command the jihad conquest of non-Muslim areas. Shariah would be the exclusive law of the land and no new law could be enacted that contradicted any aspect of Shariah.

Islam promotes violence amongst nations demanding that jihad be conducted to spread the Islamic state and Shariah, subordinating all people to this ideology, regardless of local beliefs or customs. Islam refers to polytheists as the worst of peoples and Jews as descendants of "apes and swine". Islam institutionalizes inter-religious hostility. In summary Islam versus anyone else. This is why Islamic scholars have divided the world into two competing factions, Dar al-Islam (The Realm of Islam) and Dar al-Harb (The Realm of War). An area is either Islamic, or it is subject to the hostilities of the mujahideen commanded by the Caliph.

Now there is a slight departure here, the social Darwinism certainly does not apply to the Islamic form of fascism, but the notional ideology here is the same, namely that there is an external force exerting pressure to separate those that are "worthy" of survival and those that aren't. The social Darwinists (and I object to this being inextricably linked to fascism, but this is another matter) would say that there are environmental pressures that would shape the destiny of humanity, yet the fascist state must intervene to expedite this process by the domination and even extermination of these inferior people. Islam accepts that this external force is god, and that the Muslim is called to strive in his path to implement his will, that his religion, Islam, be spread to every part of the globe, that the inferior faiths of Christianity and Judaism be "brought low" (to quote the Qur'an) and others be exterminated or brutally oppressed. In both instances the fascist state assigns itself the right to carry out the mandate of an external and invisible force, one which places them at the pinnacle of society, to carry out the destruction and oppression of the inferior peoples.

Finally I would say the warrior mentality is common to Islam as well. Muhammad said that fighting one day of jihad is better than months upon months spent in a mosque. Ibn Qayyiam al-Jawziyya wrote in his work Zaad al-Ma'ad (Provisions for the Hereafter) that "jihad is the pinnacle of the Islamic faith, and that the Messenger experienced it in all its aspects". The warrior, the martyr, is rewarded with virgins in the hereafter, he holds the highest place in heaven. Furthermore, Islam views this state of war between the Muslims and the Kuffar (Infidels) as the natural order of the world. This is why truces are non-existent in Islamic law, save that they can be used to cease hostilities long enough for the Muslims to rearm and gain enough strength to overcome those they wish to conquer.

As we return to our definition, I have made a few edits (bolded italics):

Islamic Fascism is a radical, authoritarian religio-nationalist ideology that aims to create a single-party religious state with a government led by a Caliph who seeks national unity and development by requiring individuals to subordinate self-interest to the collective interest of the Islamic state. Islamic Fascist movements promote violence between nations and religions as part of a theologically militarist stance that views violence between these groups as a natural and positive part of divine order. In the view of these groups being in perpetual conflict, Islamic fascists believe only the divinely chosen can survive by being healthy, vital, and have an aggressive jihad mentality by conquering, dominating, and eventually eliminating people deemed religiously inferior and degenerate.

With a few simple edits we have Islam and fascism defined. The fascism model fits Islam so perfectly, is it any wonder that Churchill said that Mein Kampf was "the new Koran of faith and war: turgid, verbose, shapeless, but pregnant with its message"?

An Exegesis of the Opening Chapter of the Qur'an

As I have discussed numerous issues on Islam on this site, I figured I should take the time to outline a classical exegesis of the opening chapter of the Qur'an, known as Surat al-Fatiha or "The Opening".

I shall quote the Fatiha here both in the Arabic, English transliteration and English translation.

By way of introduction, let me make some brief remarks on the position and importance of this sura. It is the opening chapter of the Qur'an, it is often referred to as Um al-Qur'an (The Mother of the Qur'an) or Um al-Kitab (The Mother of the Book). It is referred to subtely later in the Qur'an as Lawh al-Mahfuz (The Preserved Tablet). It is the position of many scholars of Islam, that the Fatiha is a summary of the entirety of the Qur'an. That every theme is contained in these 7 verses. It is recited at the beginning of every raka'a of the prayer, which means it is recited no less than 17 times per day (assuming one performs the five obligatory prayers), and is the only sura which is required to be recited during prayer. The Chapter is divided into seven verses. It breaks down into the three beginning verses which are dedicated to the description and praise of Allah, the last three verses which are pleas from the believer made to Allah, and a middle verse which serves as a transition.

Invocation:
بِسْمِ اللّهِ الرَّحْمـَنِ الرَّحِيمِ
Bismillahi al-Rahman-ir-raheem
"By the name of Allah the compassionate the merciful"

This is the invocation made at the beginning of every chapter of the Qur'an. However, the Fatiha is the only chapter where this is included IN the chapter and not as a disconnected pre-amble. All major scholars agree to this, save for the Shafi'i who do not consider this a part of the chapter and thus do not recite it as part of the chapter (as most Arabs are Shafi'i I shall exclude it from the chapter). This is often mistranslated as "In the Name of Allah", however the "bi" sound is what is referred to in Arabic as harf ul-ma'ana. Meaning "a letter with meaning", denoting it is neither noun nor verb, but has significance. In fact it means "by", not "in", and this should be translated as "by" the means (name) of Allah, not "in" his name. The very word "Allah" means "God", some say this comes from the Arabic conjunction of the definite article "al" and the word for God "Ilah" making it al-Illah, however most Muslim scholars debate this formulation saying Allah is the name God chose for himself above all others. The next to words mean "The Merciful, the Compassionate" (Often translated as "The Beneficent"). These are two among the 99 other names Allah has chosen for himself and are placed here as a reminder to believers that their piety will be rewarded with mercy and compassion.

1)
الْحَمْدُ للّهِ رَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ
Al-Hamdullilahi-rub il-'alameen
"All praise is for Allah, Lord of the Worlds"

This verse begins the praise and description of Allah. The word hamd comes from the verb h-m-d which means to "praise" and thus the noun is "praise". However this word is used exclusively for the praise of Allah, any other form of praise from a human to a human would be described by the verb m-d-h. The letters remain the same but are in a different order. In the trickiness of the Arabic language this could be accidental, or it could be some strange design of the early Arabs. The next two words describe Allah as "The Lord of the Worlds". Specifically the world (this one in which we live) is known as al-'Aalam, but here it is pluralized, and scholars of Islam have posited that this means 10,000 worlds, and that Allah is ruler of all. The question has been bandied about (uselessly as it makes no sense) that this could mean universes, dimensions, or inhabitable planets. All attempts to rationalize Abrahamic faith.

2)
الرَّحْمـنِ الرَّحِيمِ (1:


al-Rahman ir-Raheemi
"The Compassionate The Merciful"

Once again the Qur'an is drawing attention to these two qualities and descriptions of Allah. They remain in the case known as majroor in Arabic, meaning they are either in a genitive form or reside next to a harf al-ma'ana (or are the indeclinable noun). In fact they are a continuation of the description of Allah as "Lord of the Worlds". Thus that he rules these worlds with the exact same compassion that he rules this one, as evidenced by the opening verse.

3)
مَـالِكِ يَوْمِ الدِّينِ (

Maaliki Yawm i-deen
"Master of the Day of Faith"

The opening word in this verse is Malik coming from the verb meaning "to own" which is a derivative of all things to do with "kingship", mulk is kingdom. Malik is literally "King". So some would say Allah is "King of the Day of Faith". The "Day of Faith" is simply the Day of Judgment where a person's faith will be tested. The Qur'an is explicit about this last day saying "No other religion (other than Islam) will be accepted of them", meaning that all the Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and any other assorted infidels will be condemned to the hellfire (which is described in both the Qur'an and the Hadith).

4)
إِيَّاكَ نَعْبُدُ وإِيَّاكَ نَسْتَعِينُ

Iyyaka na'badu, wa iyyaka nasta'een
"To you we turn in worship, to you we turn for aid"

This is the transitional verse of which I spoke in my opening remarks. The firt phrase "to you we turn in worship" continues the theme of describing Allah and the believers duty and relationship to him, and the second shifts the theme of the verse to the Muslim as they seek aid from Allah. "Unto you" is fronted here (meaning the direct object is placed before the verb and the subject of the verb, which in Arabic is contained in the verb itself), the verse would have been more tradiontally Arabic if it had use the "you" as an enclitic suffix, saying Na'buduka, but the author of the Qur'an was very specific in making sure that the object was held up as the most important aspect of the verse. Thus using a more poetic construct to front and emphasize the object. The same holds true as the chapter shifts emphasis to the Muslim with iyyaka nasta'een, with similar fronted object (Known in Arabic as the Mafa'ul bihi).

5)
اهدِنَــــا الصِّرَاطَ المُستَقِيمَ

Ihdina al-Sirat al-Mustaqeem
"Guide us (to) the straight path"

This verse begins with an imperative verb, Ihdina with the enclitic suffix "we" (here "na"). The believers are imploring Allah, en masse, for guidance upon the straight path. The word for path al-Sirat is not actually an Arabic word by origin, which is interesting in that Muslims will contend that the Qur'an is the pinnacle of the pure language of Allah. However the word for path here is most likely derived from Latin or some other Mediterranean (pre-Islamic) language. It would be a sore irony for Muslims to think of this 17 times per day in prayer, so it is generally left undiscussed, or simply as a "miracle" of Allah.

6)
صِرَاطَ الَّذِينَ أَنعَمتَ عَلَيهِمْ
Sirat aladheena an'amta 'Alayhum
The path of those upon whom you have bestowed your blessings

Again we see the invasion of non-Arabic on the opening chapter of the Qur'an. in the form of Sirat. Now we see the verb na'ma from n-'-m. This literally means to bless or bestow. However the form used is confusing as it uses the second person singular past tense, which denotes familiarity (this is also the case in iyyaka). Usually when Allah describes himself, or when Muslims address him, the royal plurals are used. For instance the royal we or royal you. The second person plural is a sign of respect in Arabic, while the royal we is a sign of arrogance. And by no coincidence Allah describes himself as al-Mutakabar (The Arrogant).

7)
غَيرِ المَغضُوبِ عَلَيهِمْ وَلاَ الضَّالِّينَ
Ghayri maghdubi 'alayhim, wa la Daaleen
"And not those who have earned your anger (condemned) and not those who go astray"

And here we have Allah dedicating the final verse to the non-believers. The Muslim is imploring Allah to spare him/her from the anger he has reserved for these two groups of people. Those who have earned Allah's anger are, of course, the Jews. The Jews angered Allah by killing "his prophets" and other assorted evils traditionally ascribed to Jews in anti-Semitic libels. And who is it who has gone astray? The Christians who bungled Jesus' (Arabic: 'Issa) message and began to worship him as a God. Now this ritual disdaing is encoded in the 17 raka'a (prostration) of prayer performed every day. Daily Muslims are called to remember those whom are ritually disdained in Islam, and eternally disdained by Allah. And by no coincidence, this is the message that Allah leaves for last, and by definition most lasting.


This concludes my exegesis of the opening chapter of the Qur'an. I hope it has been helpful.

The Religious Cleansing of Bangladesh

The Hindu man to the left was beaten to death by Muslims after a Friday prayer in Bangladesh. Apparently the imam riled the congregants and immediately upon completion of the prayer the worshippers stormed into the street and grabbed the first Hindu they could find, and beat him to death. As you can see in the photo he begged for his life, to no avail. Someone once argued for religion saying "Wouldn't you feel safer knowing a mob coming down the street had just left a prayer service." Whoever said that wasn't a Hindu in Bangladesh.

While Muslims parade (read: 'riot') around claiming to be defenders of the "human rights" of Palestinians, remind them how millions of Hindus have been forced out of their homes and country and even killed by rampaging Muslims. Muslims hypocritically use "human rights" as a tool in their arsenal to wage their ongoing jihad against the state of Israel, but are quite a bit more shy when it comes to the Muslims systematically gang raping Christian women in the Sudan. {I commented briefly on gang rape as an institutionalized form of redressing offenses to "honor" here}

In 1947 when East Pakistan (as Bangladesh was then known) gained independence, Hindus comprised roughly 28% of the population. As of the most recent census data, the number has been reduced to 9.2%. This is largely attributable to a Muslim policy of religious cleansing of Hindus. As Hindus are polytheists, and polytheists are the most despised in Islam, it is not hard to motivate the Muslim masses to participate in such practices, or at least tolerate them.

In 1971 (during Operation Searchlight) and running clear through the Bangladesh War of Independence there was an active policy to kill both Bengali intellectuals, Biharis, and Hindus. Below is a quotation from "Statistics of Democide: Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1900" (Ch.8):

"In East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) [General Agha Mohammed Yahya Khan and his top generals] also planned to murder its Bengali intellectual, cultural, and
political elite. They also planned to indiscriminately murder hundreds of
thousands of its Hindus and drive the rest into India. And they planned to
destroy its economic base to insure that it would be subordinate to West
Pakistan for at least a generation to come. This despicable and cutthroat plan
was outright genocide."

After 267 days of offensive operations the army of Agha Mohammed Yahya Khan had killed approximately 1.5 million people (intellectuals, ethnic Biharis, and Hindus). They had also created 10 million refugees (people who were forced to flee to neighboring India, which instituted a policy to turn most back or treat them as intruders which resulted in the shooting of a 12 year old girl ). It is worth noting that 1.5 million was a conservative estimate, other estimates have come in at 3 million dead in the genocide.

In June of 1988 President, Gen. H.M. Ershad signed an amendment to the Constitution of Bangladesh stating that Islam was the state religion and that absolute faith and trust in Allah would be the basis of all action. Is it any wonder that a state now designated as officially "Islamic" would carry on persecuting the mushrikeen (polytheists)? And indeed it carried on in official state policy with the passing of the "Enemy Property Act" after the 17 day war with India. After the passage of this act the "Islamic" state began confiscating property belonging to Hindus, at will. And even when this law was repealed in 2001 (Property Return Bill) the State Minister informed the press in April, 2001 that this was for the sole benefit of Muslims.

Nor is this unique to Bangladesh. Afghanistan was similarly cleansed of Hindus... if one notices the mountain range "Hindu Kush" in Afghanistan, the translation of this is "Hindu Killer". Kush invariably means "killing" in Old Persian. This is in reference to the multitudes of Hindus who had died in the passes of these mountains after they had been taken as slaves by the Muslims (Islam permits the taken of slaves) and forced to march through the mountains.

There is no doubt that there are Muslim apologists who will say that this is a result of the nation state, identity, etc... The unfortunate fact is that it isn't unique or new when a Muslim population comes to control a region. In the original Islamic conquest it is estimated by some scholars that as many as 70 million Hindus were killed, and many more subtly forced to convert to Islam. Although things got better under the Mughal dynasty, this was due, possibly, to the fact that the Mughals were Timurids (Turko-Mongol), and not Arabs. By comparison, the conquest of the Mongols (Genghis Khan) looks mild versus what Muslims did in the subcontinent. Genghis Khan had a policy of including local religions in his empire, taking their input, and giving them freedom of worship. This much more accurately explains why the Mughals gave greater latitude to the Hindus than any false notion of Islamic tolerance.

Where is the Islamic basis for such behavior? Let's look at some verses from the Qur'an regarding polytheists.... Qur'an 9:5:

"When, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters
(polytheists) wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege
them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship
and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving,
Merciful. "

Explanation: Fight and kill polytheists until they become Muslim.

Qur'an: 89:6

"Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the
polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the
worst of creatures. "

The point is made. The Muslims have systematically killed, expelled, and oppressed Hindus in the Subcontinent. This is due to the Islamic principles of intolerance and hate for polytheists. Let us not fall into the trap of discussing human rights with Islam apologists.

How are Women Viewed in Islam?

Oh how I grow sick of listening to Muslims explain to me how wonderful Islam is when it comes to women, all the while telling me that the west is abusing women by letting them choose how to dress. I thought I would take a brief moment to comment on how women are treated in the Muslim world, in practice. There is plenty to be said of the textual basis for treating women as unclean, property, and inferior.

Now that we have dealt with the Qur'an and its awful approach to women (the Hadith are rife with similar commentary such as Muhammad saying that the majority of the inhabitants of hell are women), we can move on to the treatment of women in the Islamic world, and we can see if it follows from the texts (I know this got Geert Wilders in trouble, but I will also read Islam back to anyone who wants, or does not want, to hear it).

One principle regarding a sex crime (rape) in Islam is that there must be four witnesses to prove rape. So when a woman was gang raped in Saudi Arabia, the judge sentenced her to 100 lashes and a year in jail for committing adultery (as prescribed by the Qur'an). The rejection of the rape report and the punishment meted out to the woman were both in perfect accordance with Islamic Law and the texts of Islam. Some scholars of Islam say that, in fact, the women deserve to be raped for their illicit dress.

Of course often enough there is a lack of a legal structure (or simply a functioning government) so Muslims must take matters into their own hands. And it isn't just in Pakistan were women are brutalized for immorality. It is right here in a secular western democracy, were Muslims carry out their violent misogyny. A Muslim man beheads his wife in what is known in Orwellian terms as an "honor killing". His wife had requested a divorce. It is impermissible in Shariah for a woman to initiate a divorce in Islam. On the other hand a man my divorce his wife with ease, it is as easy as saying talaq three times.

It is a wonder that Muslims even bother to keep up the PR charade. Who would believe the cries of innocence from a suspect who repeatedly and habitually confesses to the crime?

This post will be the first in a series of posts on Islam (tomorrow will be Jews, the following apostates, then gays, etc...). Hopefully (or as the Muslims say Insha'allah) this will bring to light the fact that the current practices of Muslims are firmly rooted in the texts of Islam.

A Convert to Islam on RD.net

Well, well... I have been informed that RD.net now has a resident convert to Islam named "Big Bang". He had said in one post that he was a "revert to Islam" ('revert' a rehabilitative term used by Muslims suggesting that all children are born Muslim and only stray later to things like Christianity, or Hinduism... a fundamental Muslim doctrine) and he followed this with "alhamdililah" (of course a mistransliteration and mispronunciation of alhamdulilah, perhaps he should have done some more research before "reverting"). I was reading (more like wading) through some of his posts, and found quite a gem, one which demands a riposte, but since I have been banned by the rationalist Gestapo, I will comment here, and hopefully this post will come to light just enough to dispel this Promethean effort in ass clownery.

The post by the self congratulatory Big Bang can be found here:

http://www.richarddawkins.net/articleComments,3609,Why-Women-Are-Bound-to-Religion-An-Evolutionary-Perspective,R-Elisabeth-Cornwell-PhD,page2#341960

I shall cite portions and respond.

"The wrongs that women suffer in Muslim lands is due (i
repeatedly point this out but it conveniently gets ignored) to ignorance and
cultural factors you sick and blind islamaphobes. "

I hear this bit of apologetics quite regularly, with the usual interstitial bouts of outright denial. This is quite a broad comment he has made here, unfortunately he does not bless us with a citation, or even a half assed reason. No doubt the suffering of women is due to "cultural" factors, the culture of Islam is at fault. Many apologists have said that it is the Arab culture that degrades women and that Islam would liberate women if only the Arabs would implement the Shariah fully. Let's not forget that Muhammad said that the Arabs were the best of people and that the Qur'an is an explicitly immutable Arabic text (Inna Anzalna Qur'anan Arabiyyan.... "Verily we have revealed an Arabic Qur'an"). The fact is that all the unpleasant aspects of Arab culture were enshrined in Islam, and this is precisely the cultural factor at work. If one looks at the opalescent profile of worldwide Islam we see certain unifying factors.... the relevant one here is the degradation of the woman in society. The only unifying factor is Islam, as I am sure Mauritanians have little in common culturally with Malaysians, save for Islam.

"Still, women are more oppressed in the west. They get raped
left,right and center and rarely are the rapists punished. In the name of 'art'
they sell their mothers,daughters and sisters. Adultery, family breakdowns and
all the ill-social and consequences are there for all to see. "

"Raped left, right and center", Oxford comma omitted for effect, apparently. Anyhow, this seems to me inaccurate, but let's assume it isn't... the perpetrators of rapes are hunted by law enforcement and prosecuted. The women are given counseling if they choose, and medical treatment. Unfortunately in many Muslim countries gang rape is an institutionalized form of punishment for perceived infringements of "honor", most recently in Pakistan. How are victims treated? A woman in Saudi Arabia was raped, when she reported the rape she was condemned as an adulterer and sentenced to 100 lashes. One could reasonably conclude that this would make rapes go unreported. What makes this comment even more sadly amusing is that in Islam a man's wife may not refuse him sex... in essence, spousal rape is acceptable. It is nothing short of shocking idiocy that a Muslim would criticize the western world for "adultery"... Islam permits adultery, in point of fact, by allowing a Muslim to keep women as sex slaves (concubines, referred to in the Qur'an as "what the right hand possesses"), and that these slaves cannot refuse sex. In one instance of epileptic fit Muhammad both sanctioned adultery and rape, and our local Muslim convert accuses the west of social dysfunction... ridiculous.

"Although the Muslims are in the worsest state in their
history, they are still BY COMPARISON socially(family/community) morally and
spiritually superior. We do not want your material and individualistic lifestyle
imposed on us, it brings nothing but misery."

What a joke. Palestinians dressing their children up as suicide bombers, terrorists in Afghanistan using 10 year olds as suicide bombers, rape victims lashed, gays hung, ad nauseum. What can one say.... other that "worsest" isn't a word.

"Islam is the solution, the only solution."

Dare I say.... 'final solution'?

A Comment on RD.net and the Wilders Debate

Since I have been banned from RichardDawkins.net I am forced to comment here about the insanity there. The following comment was brought to my attention by the ever prescient and entertaining Styrer. He asked for my commentary, and I plan to give it to him. Here is the link to the comment in question:


http://www.richarddawkins.net/articleComments,3597,Dutch-MP-refused-entry-to-Britain,BBC,page4#339916

Here is the relevant portion of text of the comment:

"Not that I am against [crucial edit] opposing Islam as a
religion, but not from the point of view of privileging Christianity and/or
Judaism, as Wilders
does. The Abrahamic
religions are after all cut from the same cloth; they have all drunk from the
same poisoned well of tribal barbarism.

Where I disagree with Hitch (and
Sam) is that Islam is inherently more barbaric or conducive to violence. Wrong.
The societies in which Islam predominates are today more backward, that is the
difference. When those societies were relatively more advanced (eg 10th century), Islam was
relatively more enlightened, and tolerant, than Christianity"

It is difficult to know where to start with this bit of regurgitated nonsense propaganda. But I shall give it a whack. Whether or not Wilders priveleges Christianity is irrelevant, and is also his right, just as Muslims are free to privilege Islam in their proselytizing of infidels. The Abrahamic religions are cut from the same cloth indeed, yet they maintain remarkable differences. The Qur'an is rife with calls for violence and oppression, those verses do not need to be recited here as they can be found by even a doltish self flagellator with a google search. One often hears the ignorant retort "Well the Old Testament says awful things as well", oh and indeed it does, but the Torah (OT) is a book that functions as a description of the history of a people. When god told the Jews to murder a tribe of people, it was just that, limited to the tribe mentioned. These are as much descriptive as anything else. Now the Qur'an doesn't speak specifically about tribes, it speaks generally of disbelievers. Thus the calls for violence don't have a limitation, one delineated in the text. If we leave the Qur'an we find ample reinforcement in the Hadith (sayings of Muhammad) for this near limitless violence.

"The societies in which Islam predominates are today more
backward, that is the difference. When those societies were relatively more
advanced (eg 10th century), Islam was
relatively more enlightened, and tolerant, than Christianity. "

This here, right here, is what drives me up the damn wall. This kind of parroting of myth and half truth is where our problem lies, this fetishization of all things non-Western. The inversion of reality, that a barbaric faith is ACTUALLY the exact opposite. Islam is clearly barbaric and violent, so the intellectual exercise to say the exact opposite is of primary importance. What nonsense. These places are backwards precisely because of Islam, how else do you explain countries awash with unprecedented oil wealth where female rape victims are beaten for adultery? What is the critical element here? Islam.

Let's move on to this 'golden age'. Indeed Islam produced some great scholarship as it spread like a pack of locusts across the globe. Devouring local knowledge, and rehashing it and producing new knowledge. But this was quickly put to death. After the Abbasid Caliph, Harun al-Rashid ushered in a period of mihna, in which literalism and rationalism were pitted against one another. The literalists (Asharites), armed with the totality of Islamic canon promptly thrashed the rationalists (Muatazilites). The rationalists were run out of town, tarred and feathered for heresy. And by no small coincidence the vast majority of scholarly production came from the Muatazilites. Rationalism was crushed, Baghdad was sacked by Hulagu, the library burnt, the Caliph stuffed in a carpet and rolled down the stairs of his palace.

The notion that Barbarians can bring benefit is not particularly special, by comparison Genghis Khan was a brutal but just leader. A man who had many redeeming qualities, but never enough to rehabilitate the destruction he wrought. Islam destroyed itself, setting quite a precedent, namely that when the texts are examined, a literalist will win. The Qur'an is not a book of allegory and metaphor, it is a book of clear and timeless commands for domination and austerity, no western scholar proved this, Muslims did. It did not help that Sunni scholars determined that the doors of Ijtihad (interpretation of the religion) were closed, leaving the Sunni world with four schools of jurisprudence (Hanafi, Shafi'i, Maliki, and Hanbali) all vying for who shall be most austere as well as patronage of the ruler of the day, whomever it was.

Is it any wonder that the period between the destruction of Islamic rationalism and present day has been a descent into further barbarity... by the miracle or miracles reflecting the very texts Muslims deemed literal and eternal? The citation of the Golden Age of Islam as a meritorious period is simply disingenuous in the extreme, it is not meritorious, it is an example of how an honest adherence to a religious text will destroy a functioning society.

Geert Wilders Denied Entry to the UK

The saga continues to unfold.... Geert Wilders has been denied entry to the UK, he was being held at a Heathrow detention center pending deportation. In light of this affront to the EU (which allows for the travel of its citizens and certainly the elected leaders of member states) and freedom of speech let us examine the rank hypocrisy of the UK government. David Miliband, when confronted by Dutch Foreign Minister, Maxime Verhagen, said of of his decision to exclude Wilders; "A hate-filled film designed to stir up religious and racial hatred in this country is contrary to our laws". Woh woh woh pump your brakes Davey, let's look at your policy a little closer... didn't the British government admit Ijaz Mian who said:

"You cannot accept the rule of the kaffir. We have to rule ourselves and we have to
rule the others... King, Queen, House of Commons: if you accept it, you are a
part of it. If you don't accept it, you have to dismantle it. So you being a
Muslim, you have to fix a target. From that White House to this Black House, we
know we have to dismantle it. Muslims must grow in strength, then take over...
You are in a situation in which you have to live like a state-within-a-state -
until you take over."

I seriously have to ask if Miliband is putting us on? Is this a joke? Is he a complete idiot or a liar? Wilders pointed out that people like Mian are intolerant and take their inspiration from the Qur'an, Wilders is banned. Mian calls for the destruction of British society, and the Brits let him waltz in, hopefully they didn't issue him a welfare check on arrival. If I were British I would probably choke on my scone. The British government is in such gross dereliction of duty that the least that should happen is expulsion from office for these self destructive morons (Davey Miliband being the first to go).

Brits... What kind of circus are you running over there?

Geert Wilders and the Weak Kneed Capitulationists

All over the news recently (or rather the sources that bother to note massive and impending threats to our liberties) is the case of Geert Wilders, under prosecution for the production of his film Fitna. On January 21, 2009 a three judge court ordered prosecutors to try Wilders for "hate speech". This is an absolutely despicable act, one that a person would expect to see in the very dictatorial pseudo-fascist Islamic states that Wilders so rightly excoriates, not in a liberal European state. As this pathetic comedy plays out it will be an enormous pie in the face of the Islamists who have begun a campaign to suppress free speech the world over. Having already succeeded in their own miserable cesspools of countries they have moved on to places where women can drive.

The reason this may turn into a fiasco is because Wilders did nothing but read back what Muslim texts already say, and juxtapose these with pictures of acts carried out by Muslims who cite these very same texts for these actions. In furtherance of this Promethean display of irony, Wilders actually does use 'hate speech', but it isn't his own, it is that of the Muslim canonical texts. Muslims should be suing themselves, if anyone.

The real issue here isn't whether Muslims are outraged over offenses, which is a near hourly occurrence for these spoiled brats, it is that a western government has given in to their fascistic demands for blood over the execution of one of their sacred cows (ironically Muhammad Ali Jinnah once quipped about the partition of India "I want to eat the cow the Hindu worships"). Liberal democracies have one enduring quality, with which they can always best the Muslim world, and that is the freedom of expression. And now the Dutch seem ready to sacrifice this great virtue on the alter of cowering political correctness (perhaps they will keep the windmills and wooden shoes).

Alas, it isn't the wooden shoe people alone who have gone on bent knee to appease the Islamists, the British (never content to be bested by another country's obsequious whimpering) have issued a letter telling Wilders he is not welcome on British soil because he "would threaten community harmony and therefore public security in the U.K." by upsetting Muslims. No doubt this has something to do with a Muslim member of the British House of Lords, Nazir Ahmed, threatening to mobilize 10,000 Muslims to protest Wilders' appearance and the screening of Fitna.

See the letter here:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/024785.php#respond

And frankly who can blame the British law enforcement establishment, the very police that scurried in all directions like frightened rats when a Muslim mob charged them screaming Kuffar (a derogatory term best translated as "infidels") during a protest in support of the people of Gaza (read, 'Hamas'). Every once and a while (lately, in fact, all too regularly) there are such grotesque examples of hypocrisy that simply boggle the mind. This is one such instance... the British have welcomed with open arms all sorts of jihadists and Islamists who spend their government welfare checks in furtherance of the destruction of British society. Spewing hate, these ignorant thugs are allowed to reside in the UK, gleefully going about their dirty business, while one of the few men with the intestinal fortitude to stand up to this brand of hate is banned for preaching "hate". What form of sick self loathing has overcome our societies that we are unable to call a spade a spade, in fact a spade that calls itself a spade? It is a bit of comedy, this liberal defense of Muslims. The Muslims themselves spew this hate, citing their texts, whilst the useful idiots try to tell the rest of the infidels that this isn't really what the Muslims mean. And all the while Muslims listen to preachers who say "this is precisely what we mean". These useful idiots must feel like an attorney on the steps of the courthouse who proclaim their client's innocence to the media, while this very client stands round back confessing to a litany of crimes.

Do these politicians feel no shame as they sell out their peoples? Not just the non-Muslims, but the Muslims who wish a better life. Muslims who escaped the cesspools of the Islamic world to come to a place that respects individual rights. Won't these brave souls be surprised to learn that after escaping the clutches of this 7th Century fascism, that those they have trusted to help them make better lives have sold them out. Revolting.

With any luck the Islamists shall be hoisted by their own petard.