Quote:Nearly a year after India passed the landmark right to education law making schooling compulsory, influential madrasa administrators are preparing to resist it, maintaining the law is a threat to Muslim religious schools. Seminary leaders from all sects will assemble in Delhi in July-end for consultations



“The Act recognizes only one type of school and only one type of education. It can be used to outlaw madrasas,” Mahmood Madni, Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind leader, told HT.



Former vice-rector of the Darul Uloom seminary, Qari Mohammed Usman, also termed the law an attempt to gain “backdoor entry” into madrasas.



“The right to education law could be shaky on two grounds,” said Faizan Mustafa, vice chancellor of National Law University, Cuttack. First, it is seen as violating the right to set up minority institutions under Article 30 of the Constitution. Second, it stipulates that parents should make up 75 per cent of a school’s administrators. This violates another constitutional guarantee that gives minority institutions a virtual free hand in running their affairs.



Human Resource Development Minister [color="#FF0000"]Kapil Sibal, aware of the brewing dissent, is said to be considering an amendment to the existing law.[/color]



Muslim clerics had squarely opposed efforts of the previous UPA regime to regulate madrasas, and direct them to teach secular subjects as well.



Madni, however, said the forthcoming meeting would address the issues of “evolving a consensus among clerics to introduce secular subjects voluntarily and also seek changes to protect madrasas”.

Quote:Darul Uloom, the seat of Sunni Islam in Deoband, in separate fatwas or edicts, has said activities, such as adolescent girls cycling or women wearing perfumes, were un-Islamic. They should cover themselves even in women-only settings, it also said. Together, these recent fatwas, or legal advisories, are seen driving a further wedge between Islamic obligations and women’s choices.



In May, Darul’s fatwa, advising women to avoid workplaces requiring them to freely mingle with men without the veil, made headlines.



For religious guidance, Sunni Muslims widely turn to Darul Uloom, ranked next to Cairo’s Al Azhar University in the theological pecking order.



The seminary’s responses, usually endorsing strict compliance of Shariah or Islamic laws, have not helped resolve emerging conflicts, experts within the community have said.



“I do not agree that cycling is un-Islamic for girls but it is true that a fatwa has to be within the broad framework of the Quran and Hadith,” Zafarul Islam, chairman of Islamic Studies department at Aligarh Muslim University, said.



Hadith, or a collection of sayings attributed to Prophet Mohammed, is the second-most authoritative source for Muslim laws, after the Quran.



Islam said historically, it was common for texts to be re-interpreted to accommodate changing realities and Darul Uloom could do the same.



The professor, however, said purdah, which takes many forms, such as the burqa or headscarf, was required under Islam and did not curb a woman’s freedom. He cited his daughter’s example, a postgraduate medical student, who wears the veil to class.

Quote:There is one fundamental difference between Islamism and all the predecessor organized religions we know about: while the "others" all started out almost surely as political-philosophical rebellions of local nature against the prevailing state and ruling systems, and were only later found out to be useful by imperialist visionaries and given their state-linked organized shape - Islam started out itself as an imperialist doctrine with an imperialist visionary at the very foundations.



Because a lot of material about those who lost out in the religious civil wars in Egypt under the Pharaohs of the new kingdom is lost, we cannot be sure but the general understanding now is that the solar cult did exist before Akhenaten as deviation/opposition to the theocracy and he for whatever reasons (OT here perhaps) took it up as an imperialist tool to assert his own authority.



Moses took monotheism up as a tool of rebellion against the prevailing Egyptian regime and later on the Jews used it as a doctrine to reclaim rights to Canaanite regions and lands which some of them perhaps left in search of employment in Egypt [the theory of slavery is hotly discounted by an influential group of academics].



Buddhism again started out from the grievances of sections of urban populations arising out of trade and urban life like professional entertainment by females [rich traders and nagara-badhus were the most prominent early recruits] against the prevailing regime of monarchies and oligarchies which were seen as corrupt and arbitrary. It was an imperialist visionary like Bimbisara who saw the potential as a then "new-age religion" to buttress his imperialist ambitions. Note that the great councils were all initiated by the "emperors" and Buddhism transformed into an organized state sponsored religion that perhaps imposed a lot of its memes on state authority.



The early Christians almost surely were one of the many politically radical Jewish groups fighting to reassert their independence from Rome, but their simplifying message was found attractive by influential section sof the roman state which led to at least one emperor seeing the potential in restructuring Christianity as an imperialist organized tool.



It is with Islam that we see a departure from this pattern in the sense that the religion was founded right from the beginning very clearly as an imperialist doctrine of expansion, subjugation and submission to authority. There was no meaningful state in the middle or even northern Arabic frontier against which the founders of Islam were rebelling.



Thus Islam cannot be understood in the way say Roman Catholicism has been understood. RC has been self-contradictory from the beginning because it had to hammered out of an essentially anarchist, anti-state ideology of individual self-assertive rebellion into one that submits and fuels imperialist expansion and consolidation. Thus the RC Church always had the potential of explosive fissures and deviations. Faced with the potential of scientific knowledge that finally filtered through the medieval contact with the East, it was almost a foregone conclusion that factions weak and chafing under RC papal authority before would lap it up as a tool of defying RC authority.



This is reflected in the fact that "science" was merely a tool as far as utility for war and independence from Papacy was concerned - it did not immediately transfer into the so-called humanitarian values of the modern period - slavery or oppression of the "other" was okay. Only when the net results of self-goals were seen in the world wars and those enslaved before showed the potential of applying these very same techniques back on the "previous masters" did Europe install checks and balances to prevent retribution on themselves for what they had done in colonial regimes.



Islam's reaction to modern science and complexity will therefore be completely different. There are no factions within Islam that seeks to upset the "centre" - for there are no centres, and there is no need for it. It is focused on power and subjugation of others, and unlike the other philosophies it does not suffer from contradictions of "peaceful intent and posturing" with the "need to subjugate". So for Islam science is only useful if it helps in war and subjugation of others, as well as satisfaction in use of power - say the little blue pills [dont know the real colour, have not seen them so far] and totally useless otherwise. You can have intricate knowledge of chemistry that will generate the blue pills which however does not need to ponder genetic mutation and its relation to natural selection and therefore face a crisis of faith.



If there are rebellions from within Islamism which at all counter Islamic theocracy - it has to be an equally self-assured and totalitarian world-view that also incorporates science as another religion [a kind of orthodoxy - no "scientific" belief can be challenged etc.]. I can see only one obvious candidate - the extreme Leftists. I guess, this is why all surviving communists of Iranian origin are basically Maoists. I guess panning this out for India is going to be a sensitive issue to discuss in details.

Quote:[url="http://www.newt.org/newt-direct/newt-gingrich-statement-proposed-%E2%80%9Ccordoba-house%E2%80%9D-mosque-near-ground-zero"] link[/url]

Newt Gingrich Statement on the Proposed “Cordoba House” Mosque near Ground Zero

July 21, 2010 6pm

There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia. The time for double standards that allow Islamists to behave aggressively toward us while they demand our weakness and submission is over.



The proposed "Cordoba House" overlooking the World Trade Center site – where a group of jihadists killed over 3000 Americans and destroyed one of our most famous landmarks - is a test of the timidity, passivity and historic ignorance of American elites. For example, most of them don’t understand that “Cordoba House” is a deliberately insulting term. It refers to Cordoba, Spain – the capital of Muslim conquerors who symbolized their victory over the Christian Spaniards by transforming a church there into the world’s third-largest mosque complex.



Today, some of the Mosque’s backers insist this term is being used to "symbolize interfaith cooperation" when, in fact, every Islamist in the world recognizes Cordoba as a symbol of Islamic conquest. It is a sign of their contempt for Americans and their confidence in our historic ignorance that they would deliberately insult us this way.



Those Islamists and their apologists who argue for "religious toleration" are arrogantly dishonest. They ignore the fact that more than 100 mosques already exist in New York City. Meanwhile, there are no churches or synagogues in all of Saudi Arabia. In fact no Christian or Jew can even enter Mecca.



And they lecture us about tolerance.



If the people behind the Cordoba House were serious about religious toleration, they would be imploring the Saudis, as fellow Muslims, to immediately open up Mecca to all and immediately announce their intention to allow non-Muslim houses of worship in the Kingdom. They should be asked by the news media if they would be willing to lead such a campaign.



We have not been able to rebuild the World Trade Center in nine years. Now we are being told a 13 story, $100 million megamosque will be built within a year overlooking the site of the most devastating surprise attack in American history.



Finally where is the money coming from? The people behind the Cordoba House refuse to reveal all their funding sources.



America is experiencing an Islamist cultural-political offensive designed to undermine and destroy our civilization. Sadly, too many of our elites are the willing apologists for those who would destroy them if they could.



No mosque.



No self deception.



No surrender.



The time to take a stand is now - at this site on this issue.

Quote:Wanted: some ‘Islam’ in CWG ceremonies

Shubhajit Roy

Tags : commonwealthgames, india



Posted: Wed Jul 28 2010, 04:11 hrs



Critical of the absence of any reference to “Islamic influence on Indian history,” in either the opening or closing ceremonies of the Commonwealth Games, the Group of Ministers has asked the Games organisers to provide a “true” representation of India’s inclusive culture by weaving this in.



It’s learnt that the issue was raised at a recent meeting of the GoM, where ministers previewed the ceremonies designed by international consultants under the guidance of filmmaker Shyam Benegal, lyricist Prasoon Joshi and Javed Akhtar.



The ministers argued that Islam was a very important aspect of Indian culture and must be showcased at a global platform like the Commonwealth Games.



Those present at the meeting were Urban Development Minister Jaipal Reddy, Tourism Minister Kumari Selja and Minister of State (Finance) Namo Narain Meena.



The government is spending about Rs 300 crore on the ceremonies. Sources said the organising committee is asking for another Rs 75 crore for room and board for artists who will perform at the ceremonies.



http://www.indianexpress.com/news/Wanted--some--Islam--in-CWG-ceremonies/652740

Quote:Written in Bold - 'KAFIR'; in the coffin of Air crash victim

03/08/2010 08:47:52 HK



Prem chand was one of the Hindu Youth from Pakistan who died in the recent Airblue plane crash in Margallah Hills. He was one of the six member of the group of Youth parliament.



According to news reports from Pakistan young Prem Chand’s coffin was marked “Kafir” and disgraced by the sick Jihadi officials.



Make no mistake, These sick Jihadi officials who couldn’t tolerate the dead body of their own citizen as he is not a Muslim are following the dictates of their holy book.

Quote:Dangerous Deviations from Judaism:

Islamic and Christian Fanaticism

Christos C. Evangeliou



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



It is my purpose in this essay to examine the textual roots of the religious fanaticism found in the Christian and Muslim holy books and to draw from them political implications for the post-11 September 2001 world. For in-depth political and religious enlightenment, I will compare biblical and koranic passages to certain passages taken from ancient Hellenic poets and philosophers. In this textual light, the passionate foolishness of monotheistic fanaticism will contrast sharply—and perhaps didactically for the younger generation—with the playfulness of polytheistic tolerance and the serenity of Hellenic philosophical thought.



The naiveté of Paul's Christianity and the mania of militant Islam, as devious aberrations of both ancient Hellenic polytheism and traditional Judaism, historically defined the messy medieval world with its holy crusades and bloody religious wars. That is enough, and more than enough, of a price for civilized mankind. These two faiths appear to philosophical minds as too barbarous and dangerous, as too fanatical and intolerant to really serve civilized humanity's spiritual needs at present and in the future. Enlightened political leaders, therefore, should see the light and prudently avoid the snares of entanglement in religious fanaticism. But it is doubtful that reason will prevail.



Christianity and Islam, as monotheistic and apocalyptic religions, share certain common characteristics with Judaism, from the roots of which they grew as dangerous deviations and aberrations. These historical faiths went [End Page 86] beyond Judaism in their ecumenical claims, their fanatical zeal, their eschatological beliefs, their theocratic tendencies, and their progressively aggressive militancy in the name of the one-and-only "true God," the God of Abraham, that is, the Hebrew patriarch par excellence. Both fanatical faiths recognized as relevant God's first revelation to the Hebrews through Abraham and the election of them as the "chosen people." But they were quick to point out that Jewish priests perverted God's message of "true faith" and salvation to mankind. As a result of this sin, the Jews lost their privileged position with God. God subsequently turned his attention to the Gentiles and bestowed his favor first upon the Christians and then upon the Muslims as God's newly chosen peoples and true believers.



Thus, these two sister religions and new faiths recognized Abraham as their founding father, that is, as the man of faith with whom God made his first covenant. They also accepted Moses as God's messenger and lawgiver to the Hebrews. But they differed radically regarding the respective roles of Jesus and Mohammed. For traditional Christians, Catholic and Orthodox, Jesus Christ was the alleged messiah and the begotten Son of God, an idea that Muslims deride as veiled polytheism and foolish blasphemy. For the devout Muslim believers, Mohammed is the last and best of God's prophets, the "seal of prophecy," a claim that Christians reject with disdain. Clever Jews, to whom these newer revelations originally were addressed by Paul and Mohammed, respectively, did not accept either of these strange and devious claims. For them, both Christ's divinity and Mohammed's privileged prophetic position are nonsense.



But billions of other credulous peoples during the past two millennia did believe wholeheartedly in these faith-demanding and dangerous dogmas. The zealots then spread their fanatical faiths all over the globe by the power of the word, or the power of the sword, according to the resistance of nonbelievers. Many old women and (some mature) men believe in these religious doctrines fanatically even today. They are prepared to give their lives, or to take other innocent lives, in the name of the one and only "true God." 1 Hence the present pressing problem created by revived religious fanaticism, in Islamic countries especially, and the concomitant terrorism that culminated [End Page 87] in the atrocities of 11 September and led to the declaration of war on terrorism by the United States.



Behind these recent terrorist acts there is a long history of religious intolerance and fanaticism connected to the spread of monotheistic, proselytizing, and ecumenical faiths, such as Paul's Christianity and Mohammed's Islam. These faiths appear now as dangerous deviations from tolerant Hellenic polytheism as well as from pious traditional Judaism. This will become clear from what follows.



The Foolishness of Pauline Christianity

According to orthodox Christian theology, God had a grand plan for the salvation of the fallen Adam and Eve and their sinful and miserable progeny. For the sons and daughters of the primordial couple had inherited not only the earth and the life of labor and sweat, with which they would earn their daily bread, but also their inherently sinful nature, as well as the "original sin." Therefore, they were in dire need of bodily and spiritual cleansing. To prepare the way for catharsis, God in his mercy gave the Law of Moses to ancient Hebrews. He also sent from time to time prophets to remind them of their sins, make them repent and prepare themselves to receive the messiah, the Anointed One (Christos in Greek, Christus in Latin, and Christ in English).



In primitive Christian mythology, or Christology, the messiah for whom the Jews had been waiting for ages (some of them are still waiting for his coming) turned out to be, paradoxically, God's "begotten son." Thus, thanks to Paul's invention, the one-and-only true God of Abraham had acquired suddenly a divine son. Mohammed differs from Paul on this crucial point for monotheistic faiths: Allah has no sons and no daughters. For the traditionally faithful Christians, as opposed to recent heretical sects, the "Son of God" was incarnate and born miraculously as a baby to the Virgin Mary in a stable in Bethlehem on a cold winter night. As a grown man, Jesus was destined to become also the sacrificial "Lamb of God," whose innocent blood was supposed to cleanse Paul's followers from their sins and save them from the fires of Hell. 2 [End Page 88]



Given their special preparation by their God and through a multitude of prophets, the Mosaic law, and an endless list of dietary taboos, the Jews ought to have accepted the son of Mary, when he appeared on earth, as the Son of God and their messiah. At least, that is what Paul and the early Church Fathers had expected of the Jews. But the majority of the Jewish people did not do so, instead keeping their traditional faith in their Yahweh. According to Paul's interpretation, this Jewish reluctance to accept the new faith in Christ forced God to turn his attention to the Gentiles in search of a new "chosen people." Not surprisingly, the "chosen" turned out to be the followers of Paul, the Christian believers. At the same time, this prudent Jewish reluctance gave an almost perfect pretext to the organized Catholic and Orthodox Churches to treat the Jews terribly for a long time to come, as the "killers of Christ," the only son of the one true God and their savior. Religious fanaticism and intolerance had, thus, begun seriously. Sadly, it is still with us.



To the Gentiles, so the story goes, God sent the apostle of the nations, Paul or Saul, as he was called in Hebrew. Paul was a Hellenized Jew, that is, a man who could preach and perhaps write in the Hellenistic koine, the lingua franca of that time. He was "miraculously" converted to the new faith as a grown man, we are told, and then devoted the rest of his life to evangelizing and fanaticizing the quasi-Hellenized Mediterranean world for some time after Jesus' death. Paul's mission became the selling of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, "raised from the dead," and through the inspiration either of jubilant hope or of fearful terror in his followers for the life to come after the Day of Judgment. While rejecting the doctrine of Christ's divinity as Pauline foolishness, Mohammed shrewdly adopted and amplified the doctrine of the terrors in Hell as his main means of terrorizing and hypnotizing his followers, the true believers. He turned them into tools of terror against innocent nonbelievers, who were persecuted mercilessly. In the end Paul and his created God-man, poor Jesus, the son of the Virgin Mary, were no match for Mohammed and his Holy Koran, the true word of God, which devout Muslims take literally.



For many years Paul and his followers went around the decadent Mediterranean world preaching to the impoverished and demoralized peoples the Good News (evangelion, or gospel) of the "raised dead," while collecting money from the neophyte Gentiles for a Christian brotherhood in Jerusalem. [End Page 89] Paul's message to the Gentiles is fantastic and the expected monetary reward frankly stated, which is indicative of the perversion of the original Hebrew faith in Paul's inflamed imagination and hungry hands. He summarized both of these traits, which were to become the trademark of the organized Christian church, clearly and proudly in his epistles to the Corinthians and Romans. From these the following passages are quoted as samples for our consideration. Paul tries to play smartly the Jews against the Gentiles, in an attempt to justify his own apostasy from traditional pious Judaism:



Because they [the Jews] sinned, salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make the Jews jealous of them. The sin of the Jews brought rich blessings to the world, and their spiritual poverty brought rich blessings to the Gentiles. How much greater the blessings will be, then, when the complete number of Jews is included. I am speaking now to you Gentiles: as long as I am an apostle to the Gentiles I will take pride in my work. Perhaps I can make the people of my own race jealous, and so be able to save some of them. For when they were rejected, the world was made friends with God. What will it be, then, when they are accepted? It will be life for the dead. (Rom. 11) 3

Of course this would not prevent Paul from proceeding to the next point boldly. He asserts his religious contempt of "man's wisdom" and his fanatical reliance on "God's power" to achieve his goal, the conversion of the world to the new Christian faith. His dogmatism and fanaticism were surpassed only centuries later by the fanaticism and intolerance of Mohammed, the last prophet and apostle of one true God. Consider:



The wisdom I speak is God's secret wisdom, hidden from men, which God had already chosen for our glory even before the world was made. None of the rulers of this world knew this wisdom. If they knew it, they would not have nailed the Lord of glory to the cross. . . . But it was to us that God made known his secret, by means of the Spirit. The Spirit searches everything, even the hidden depths of God's purposes. (1 Cor. 2) [End Page 90]

Like previous prophets and like Prophet Mohammed, Paul claims to have had mystical access to God's secrets and revelations. But his sophistry reached its apex when he tried to convince the still skeptical new believers among the Corinthians about the greatest of miracles, the resurrection of the dead. This is depicted vividly for posterity. For Paul, the dead cannot only be raised from death but can meet and converse with the living:



I passed on to you what I received, which is of the greatest importance: that Christ died for our sins, as written in the Scriptures; that he was buried, and was raised to life on the third day, as written in the Scriptures; that he appeared to Peter, and then to all twelve apostles. Then he appeared to more than five hundred of his followers at once, most of whom are still alive, although some have died. . . . Now, since our message is that Christ has been raised from death, how can some of you say that the dead will not be raised to life? (1 Cor. 15)

The Christian believers would have considered themselves privileged to be on the side of a victorious God, who would defeat all enemies and establish his kingdom on earth to last forever. But this privileged election had its price in monetary terms. On this point Paul, the apostate Jew and the Christian apostle of God, just like the Muslim merchant and apostle of Allah, is very frank. His epistle to the Corinthians states clearly:



Now the matter about the money to be raised to help God's people in Judea: you must do what I told the churches in Galatia to do. Every Sunday each of you must put aside some money, in proportion to what he has earned, and save it up, so there will be no need to collect money when I come. After I come I shall send the men you have approved, with letters of introduction, to take your gift to Jerusalem. If it seems worthwhile for me to go, then they will go along with me. . . . With my own hand I write this: Greeting from Paul. Whoever does not love the Lord—a curse on him! Maranatha. (1 Cor. 16)

Clearly, then, Paul was a consummate salesman. He was selling the promise of life after death and resurrection of the dead to simple-minded Gentiles, especially to decadent and demoralized Greeks, while collecting their hard-earned drachmas. Of course, Paul's preaching of resurrection and [End Page 91] salvation, cheaply bought, did not fool many decent and intelligent Jews. Faced with Paul's dilemma, either the dead are raised or the Apostle of God is lying to you by preaching their resurrection, most Jews opted for the second choice. But the new faith in the incarnation and resurrection of Christ from the dead was intoxicating to many others. The belief in an imminent second coming of the Son of God to judge the living and the "risen dead," to separate the faithful from the nonbelievers, and to bring the Kingdom of God on earth proved to be very potent with some simple-minded Gentiles. Especially the impoverished and demoralized Greeks of that time proved to be very vulnerable to Paul's artful selling of salvation. His message about the new faith in the only begotten Son of God, who had risen from the dead, was so fanatical and pervasive that many believers were willing to die for it. And they did die by the thousands, persecuted by the Roman authorities for their bigotry and fanatical faith. In the end the Christian fanatics won the day. As a result of this misfortune, Europe lost contact with its cultural roots in the Greek-Roman world for many centuries.



However, after they prevailed politically in the fourth century A.D., and were called upon to rule the Christianized empire, the Christian followers of Paul proved to be very destructive and intolerant indeed. They turned against not only other religions with long civilized traditions in the Mediterranean world but also against the Olympic Games, which were abolished in 394 A.D. by an edict of the Christian emperor Theodosius. Paul's followers also turned fanatically against freedom of thought in Hellenistic schools of philosophy, which were closed down by an edict of Emperor Justinian in 529 A.D. By that time, intolerance and the demand of strict orthodoxy had eliminated all non-Christian religious practices around the Mediterranean world. Not surprisingly, it had also uprooted other, "heretical" Christian sects as deviations from the true dogma (orthodoxy) of the established Christian church. This was done apparently in the name of the one true God, and the one true faith in the Christian Trinity, with the powerful backing of the Byzantine emperors, who had their political reasons for such support.



These absolute despots had found in the one despotic Christian God, absolute ruler of the universe, the visible and the invisible, a perfect image of their own monarchic rule of the new Christian empire, which had replaced the Roman Empire. The memory of classical Hellenic freedom and democracy [End Page 92] faded away. Pauline—intolerant—Christianity had apparently prevailed totally. The Christian Trinity had triumphed over the Hellenic gods. But at that critical moment in history, a more militant prophet emerged unexpectedly out of the Arabian sands to challenge Christ's authority more fanatically and successfully than Paul's Trinitarian Christianity had challenged both the piety of traditional Judaism and the tolerance of Hellenic polytheism.



For the next millennium, militant Islam and orthodox Christianity were destined to fight to the bitter end for the souls of true believers as well as for world dominion. With the capture of Constantinople in 1453, Islam finally triumphed. The Orthodox Christians of the Middle East, North Africa, Asia Minor, the Balkans, Greece, and Cyprus became slaves to the sultans, the representatives of Allah on earth, when they were not slaughtered in the name of the one true God, Allah, and his best prophet, Mohammed. Only in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were some of these Christian peoples liberated. Even the recent liberation of Christian slaves from Muslim sultans may prove to be only ephemeral, in view of the recent fanatical revival of militant Islam.



The Fanaticism of Mohammedan Islam

But let us follow the rise of Islam to political power by means of fanaticism more closely. In the beginning of the seventh century of the Christian era, at the moment when Christian orthodoxy and Trinitarian intolerance seemed to have reached their apex, Mohammed received miraculously a new revelation, which was more fanatical than Paul's and, therefore, politically more potent. The new Muslim faith was destined to challenge the Christian claim to a monopoly on God's truth and the honorable title of "the chosen people." Out of the old Jewish one-and-only true God, the Christian Fathers, with help from the emperor's lawyers and Byzantine theologians, had created a strange trinity: the Father, the Son (in the image of man), and the Spirit (in the image of a dove.) The Prophet of Islam masterfully acknowledged that the Jews and the Christians were blessed in the distant past with some "true revelations" coming to them from the one-and-only true God and with many prophets, especially Moses and Jesus. Unfortunately, Christians and Jews [End Page 93] had misunderstood the prophets of God and had falsified his true message of salvation to mankind. God, therefore, had to raise a new true prophet, the last and most perfect of prophets, to set the religious record straight once and for all.



Prophet Mohammed became God's true messenger, and his message, delivered in Arabic and in eloquent poetic verse, was intended primarily for the Arab nation and only secondarily for others. These true believers were apparently blessed to see the truth of the new revelations incorporated in the Holy Koran. They embraced the new faith of Islam, fanatically and blindly, to be saved from the fires of Hell by the merciful Allah. Unlike the nonbelievers, believers were not to fear the fast approaching Day of Judgment. The nonbelievers, whether Christians, Jews, or pagans, had only two choices: to accept the new faith and be saved from the fires of Hell or to be conquered by the power of the faithful in the name of Allah and serve them as their slaves. Resistance or rebellion by nonbelievers would justify their merciless elimination by the sword in the name of Allah, the one and only God, and his last and perfect prophet, Mohammed the merciful.



In an exclusive, uncompromising, and Manichean manner, mankind was thus divided in the Koran into two hostile camps: The true believers, who followed Mohammed blindly, and everybody else. These were designated as nonbelievers and made the target of aggression sanctioned by the Prophet in the name of his God, Allah. He declared loudly and clearly that peace is not possible between the Realm of Islam (Dar al Islam) and the Realm of War (Dar al Harp). As envisioned by the Prophet and Apostle of God, the ultimate goal of faithful and militant Muslims was one God (Allah), one perfect Prophet (Mohammed), and one true faith (Islam) spread all over the globe by all means, by the word, preferably, and by the sword if need be. The world was to be united in the name of Allah by force, if necessary, and ruled by the Prophet's legitimate successors in perpetuity, until the Day of Judgment. Then, believers will go to paradise and nonbelievers to Hell. War of the true believers against the nonbelievers is not only justified in the service of the true faith but is glorified in the name of the one and only true God, Allah. In its ecumenical and militant zeal, Islam, like Pauline Christianity, is clearly not an improvement but an aberration of traditional Judaism. [End Page 94]



Christians and Jews As Infidels in the Holy Koran

To make it clear that such was actually the case with Mohammed's militant Islam, let us consider the evidence from the Koran, noting especially the message of monotheistic mania and religious intolerance, which can easily inspire simple souls to terror. In the first set of quotations, Christians and Jews, no less than pagans, are viewed as infidels and made the targets of some of the sharpest attacks in the Koran. Mohammed claims that the coming of his revelation in the Koran has superseded all previous prophecies. In this sense, his claims surpass even those of Paul and the Christian evangelists in their fanaticism:



Children of Israel, remember the favor I have bestowed upon you. Keep your covenant, and I will keep mine. Dread my power. Have faith in my revelations, which confirm your Scriptures, and do not be the first to deny them. Do not sell my revelations for a paltry price. Fear me. Do not confound truth with falsehood, nor knowingly conceal the truth. (2:39) 4

And further:



And now that a book [the Koran] confirming their own has come to them by God, [the Jews and Christians] deny it, although they know it to be the truth and have long prayed for help against the unbelievers. God's curse be upon the infidels! Evil is that for which they have bartered away their souls. To deny God's own revelation, grudging that He should reveal His bounty to whom He chooses from among His servants! They have incurred God's most inexorable wrath. An ignominious punishment awaits the unbelievers. (2:88)

And just in case Christians and Jews did not get the message, Mohammed reminded them as well as his followers that, when it comes to true religion, there is not much to choose from. You either follow Mohammed straight to salvation in paradise, or you follow a different path, any other path, leading to perdition in Hell. Friendship and reconciliation between the followers of these different religious faiths is not possible, according to him, the last and best of prophets. He is explicit on this essential point: [End Page 95]



He that chooses a religion other than Islam, it will not be accepted from him and in the world to come he will surely be among the losers. How will God guide those who lapse into unbelief after embracing the faith and acknowledging the Apostle as true, and after receiving veritable proofs? God does not guide the evildoers. Their reward will be the curse of God. (3:83)

Believers, if you yield to a group from among those who were given the Book, they will turn you back from faith to unbelief. But how can you disbelieve when God's revelations are recited to you and His own Apostle is in your midst? He that holds fast to God shall be guided to a straight path. Believers, fear God as you rightly should, and when death comes, die true Muslims. Cling one and all to the faith of God and let nothing divide you. (3:97)

Believers, do not make friends with any but your own people. They [Jews and Christians] will spare no pains to corrupt you. They desire nothing but your ruin. Their hatred is evident from what they utter with their mouths, but greater is the hatred which their hearts conceal. We have made plain to you Our revelation. Strive to understand them. (3:118)

Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another. Whoever of you seeks their friendship shall become one of their numbers. God does not guide the wrongdoers. (5:51)

Nor would the apostle and prophet of Allah leave it unclear as to who are truly unbelievers. They are not just the pagans and the atheists, as innocent souls may think. They explicitly include the peoples of the Book, Jews and Christians. These especially were expected to embrace the new prophet of God and his message wholeheartedly:



Unbelievers are those who declare: "God is the Messiah, the son of Mary." Say: "Who could prevent God, if He so willed, from destroying the Messiah, the son of Mary, his mother and all the people of the earth? God has sovereignty over the heaven and the earth and all that lies between them. He creates what He will and God has power over all things." (5:15-18) [End Page 96]

Mohammed takes pleasure in describing vividly the joys of the true believers in paradise, who can eat and drink and marry the "dark-eyed furies," while the unbelievers, especially the People of the Book who would not accept Mohammed's message, are destined to become "Satan's confederates." They will burn in Hell for eternity, and the apostle of Allah will be justified, triumphant, and pleased with their torture there:



Garments of fire have been prepared for the unbelievers. Scalding water shall be poured upon their heads, melting their skins and that which is in their bellies. They shall be lashed with rods of iron. Whenever, in their anguish, they try to escape from Hell, back they shall be dragged, and will be told: "Taste the torment of the Conflagration!" (22:19)

Glorification of War on Unbelievers in the Koran

Mohammed, then, draws a sharp distinction between the true believers, whom he identifies with his followers, and the unbelievers, with whom he includes Jews and Christians. In spite of the fact that they had received some valid revelations from Allah before the appearance of the last prophet on earth, Christians and Jews are damned if they do not listen to the new revelation and prostrate themselves to Allah and his apostle. War against them is not only justified but ordained by God and his true prophet:



Fight for the sake of God those that fight against you, but do not attack them first. God does not love the aggressors. Slay them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the place from which they drove you. Idolatry is more grievous than bloodshed. But do not fight them within the precincts of the Holy Mosque unless they attack you there; if they attack you put them to sword. . . . Give generously for the cause of God and do not with your own hands cast yourselves into destruction. (2:190-6)

Since holy wars with God's help will certainly bring victories to true believers, the Prophet prudently deemed it necessary to make specific arrangements for the distribution of the spoils of war among the believers, with the lion's share going naturally to Allah and his apostle. Wars and swords were blessed means of spreading the true faith of Islam:[End Page 97]



They ask you about the spoils. Say: The spoils belong to God and the Apostle. Therefore have fear of God and end your disputes. Obey God and His Apostle. If you are true believer . . . God revealed His will to the angels, saying: "I shall be with you. Give courage to the believers. I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers!" That was because they defied God and His Apostle. He that defies God and His Apostle shall be sternly punished by God. . . . It was not you, but God, who slew them. It was not you who smote them: God smote them so that He might richly reward the faithful. God hears all and knows all. God will surely frustrate the designs of the unbelievers. (8:1-18)

Further, the Prophet admonishes:



The spoils taken from the town-dwellers and assigned by God to His Apostle shall belong to God, to the Apostle and his kinfolk. . . . Whatever the Apostle gives you, accept it; and whatever he forbids you, forbear from it. Have fear of God; God is stern in retribution. (59:1-7)

Evidently, the holy warriors will have to be satisfied with the little rewards that they will receive here on earth, waiting for the greater prizes to come to them in paradise after death. For the holy faith of Islam demands fights and sacrifices from the believers.



Excuses from the believers when the call to fight for their faith has gone out are not acceptable. They will be punished here below and there above mercilessly by Allah on the Day of Judgment, which for Mohammed, as well as for Paul, was approaching fast:



Believers, why is it that when you are told: "March in the cause of God," you linger slothfully in the land? Are you content with this life in preference to the life to come? Few indeed are the blessings of this life, compared to those of the life to come. If you do not go to war, He will punish you sternly, and replace you by other men. You will in no way harm Him; for God has power over all things. . . . March on and fight for the cause of God, with your wealth and with your persons. This will be best for you, if you but knew it. (9:37-40) [End Page 98]

God has purchased from the faithful their lives and worldly goods and in return has promised them the Garden. They will fight for the cause of God, slay and be slain. Such is the true promise, which He has made them in the Torah, the Gospel and the Koran. And who is more true to his pledge than God? Rejoice then in the bargain you have made. This is the supreme triumph. (9:110)

War should be welcomed by the true believers because it will lead to victories and triumphs for them and their true faith for the ultimate glory of Allah. He is always on their side and will do most of the fighting anyway, so there is nothing to fear in battle.



The glorification of war for the cause of God, in service of the "true faith" and in obedience to God's warlike apostle reaches its apogee in the following two brief verses:



Have faith in God and His Apostle, and fight for God's cause with your wealth and your persons. That would be best for you, if you but knew it (61:9);

and



Prophet make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and deal sternly with them. Hell shall be their home, evil their fate. (66:7-10)

Dangerous Games in the Name of God

Thus spoke the last and best of the prophets about God and the true believers in the words of the Holy Koran. I quoted them extensively and sequentially, because they are revealing of the nature of the prophetic mind and temperament. In these apocalyptic and dreadful utterances are located precisely the problem with prophetic or zealous men, who have the audacity to proclaim themselves apostles and messengers of God, "the one and only true God." Without modesty or fear they give themselves poetic license to utter all sorts of nonsense in the name of God. In his name they can demand from the believers blind faith in their utterances and sacrifice of their wealth as well as their lives: "to slay and be slain" for the cause of God, which usually happens to coincide with the personal enrichment and glorification of the [End Page 99] apostles. The warrior and merchant Mohammed is more frank and explicit on this point than Paul, the timid, shrewd salesman. For Mohammed declared boldly: "The spoils of war belong to Allah and His Apostle."



In the name of God, a prophet or apostle of God can declare "holy wars" against those who disagree with his message and oppose the self-proclaimed messenger of God. In the name of God the messenger and apostle of God can claim that his word is God's word and vice versa. He can demand obedience without any reservation or question by the believers. Such a mentality can make even a skeptic philosopher wonder what a good God would really think of these so-called prophets and what would be in store for such dreadful souls on the Day of Judgment, if there were to be one.



More than a billion Muslims all over the world prostrate themselves five times a day repeating, as the holiest of prayers, the unthinking and hypnotic "La ilaha illa Allah, Muhammad rasul Allah" (There is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is His Messenger). What would Buddha or Socrates think about this kind of prayer? Buddha would in all probability have smiled gently upon hearing such an unwise utterance, while a true believer and follower of Mohammed, upon seeing Buddha's ironic smile, would certainly have rushed to cut off his head to erase such an upsetting expression. The Athenian philosopher would have advised to pray to God and all other gods.



But devout fundamentalist Muslims, who take their monotheistic faith deadly seriously, fanatically believe in its absolute truth. They must then be consistently intolerant of other, different conceptions of God. They are bound to abhor other religious faiths. In this regard, militant Islam has surpassed even the folly of Pauline Christianity in fanatical zeal and monotheistic mania. It is definitely an aberration and dangerous deviation from benign traditional Judaism. Politically viewed, it is even more dangerous than Paul's version of Christian fanaticism. Such faiths seem destined to collide forever in the name of God.



Yet senior editors of serious journals, such as the National Geographic, are prepared to theorize carelessly about a virtuous and innocent Islam placed on the same level as Christianity and Judaism:



Some 1.3 billion human beings—one person in five—heed Islam's call in the modern world, embracing the religion at a rate that makes it the [End Page 100] fastest growing on earth, with 80 percent of believers now outside the Arab world. For these people, Islam is an intimate personal connection to the same God worshiped by Jews and Christians, a source of strength and hope in a troubled world.

The term itself, Islam, is an Arabic word meaning "submission to God." With its etymological roots firmly planted in salam, or peace, . . . "Peace is the essence of Islam," says Prince El Hassan bin Talal, brother of the late King Hussein and a descendant of the Prophet Muhammad. 5

Well, one would like to hope that these statements were true. But the many passages from the Koran, which were quoted above, tell us a different story. Comments, therefore, like those of the National Geographic can come only from those who have not read the Koran carefully or who openly attempt to deceive innocent others, themselves being first greatly deceived.



The truth is that Muslim and Christian fundamentalists, in their missionary zeal to spread their respective faiths in the one true God, evangelizing the world by all means, should be concerned with their intolerant faiths and the fanatical acts that they commit. Without shame, they seem to have first appropriated the Jewish God and the impious myth of "a chosen people" and then turned their hatred against the Jews, their traditions, religious practices, and holy places. In their fanatical fury, they also eliminated all pre-Christian and pre-Islamic religions of the Mediterranean world, which tended to be polytheistic and more tolerant than these monopolistic religions can ever be. Clearly then, the world of the twenty-first century does not really need the fanaticism bred by such archaic and vicious faiths. The light of reason and polytheistic tolerance are preferable.



The Playfulness of Hellenic Polytheism

In such a religious climate of dogmatic assertions, divine threats, and demands of blind faith, common to both Pauline Christianity and Mohammedan Islam, with their supposedly revealed utterances, there is little room left for civilized discussion, reflection, and the voice of reason. Fear, suspicion, and hatred predominate. Eros and laughter disappear. It makes one [End Page 101] wonder what kind of madness has possessed so many human souls and minds for so long. How can these fanatical faiths be taken seriously at the dawn of the twenty-first century? How can mankind fall so low in its relationship to the divine? Such questions become real puzzles if we consider that there was a time when people had the freedom to imagine their gods and their goddesses differently, very differently, from this. In the pre-Christian era, people were pleased to imagine the gods like happy human beings. They could even make fun of their gods, allowing them to have some real fun, too.



Consider, for example, how lovely and hilariously Homer, the great Hellenic poet, describes a scene between Zeus, the highest god of the Hellenic pantheon, and his beautiful and lawful wife, Hera. She is about to seduce him, make passionate love to him on the top of the mountain, put him to sleep, and thus distract him from her doings:



And [Zeus] stood before [Hera], and spake, and addressed her . . . :

"Hera, thither [to her mother's abode] mayest thou go even hereafter. But for us twain, come, let us take our joy, couched together in love; for never yet did desire for goddess or mortal woman so shed itself about me and overmastered the heart within my breast—nay, not when I was seized with love of the wife of Ixion, who bare Peirithous, the peer of the gods in counsel; nor of Danae of the fair ankles, daughter of Acrisius, who bore Perseus, preeminent above all warriors; nor of the daughter of far-famed Phoenix, that bear me Minos and godlike Rhadamanthys; nor of Semele, nor of Alkmene in Thebes, and she brought forth Heracles, her son stout of heart, and Semele bare Dionysus, the joy of mortals; nor of Demeter, the fair-tressed queen; nor of glorious Leto; nay, nor yet of thine own self, as now I love thee, and sweet desire layeth hold of me."

Then with crafty mind the queenly Hera spake unto him:

"Most dread son of Cronos, what a word hast thou said! If now thou are fain to be couched in love on the peak of Ida, where all is plain to view, what and if some one of the gods that are forever should behold us twain as we sleep, and should go and tell it to all the gods? Then verily thou could not arise from the couch and go again to thy house; that were a shameful thing. But if thou wilt, and it is thy heart's good pleasure, thou [End Page 102] hast a chamber, that thy dear son Hephastus fashioned for thee, and fetted strong doors upon door-posts. Thither let us go and lay us down, since the couch is thy desire."

Then in answer to her spake Zeus, the cloud-gatherer:

"Hera, fear thou not that any god or man shall behold the thing, with such a cloud shall I enfold thee withal, a cloud of gold. There through might not even Helios discern us twain, albeit his sight is the keenest of all for beholding." 6

Evidently, then, the Hellenic gods and goddesses were imagined as having erotic relations and much fun on Olympus and on earth, mingling with the mortals, unlike the god of the Koran and the Bible, who appears as lonely, nonerotic, tyrannical, and cruel. Not only did the Hellenic gods enjoy life themselves, but they allowed the humans to do the same, and even to make fun of their gods. Aristophanes did just that with his dramatic characters on the Athenian stage. Consider the exchange between the philosopher Socrates and an ignorant man named Strepsiades in the Clouds:



SOCRATES: These [clouds] are the only gods there are. The rest are but figments.

STREPSIADES: Holy name of Earth! Olympian Zeus is a figment?

SOCRATES: Zeus? What Zeus? Nonsense. There is no Zeus.

STREPSIADES: No Zeus! Then who makes it rain? Answer me that.

SOCRATES: Why, the clouds, of course. What's more, the proof is incontrovertible. For instance, have you ever yet seen rain when you didn't see a cloud? But if your hypothesis were correct, Zeus could drizzle from an empty sky, while the clouds were on vacation.

STREPSIADES: By Apollo, you're right. A pretty proof. And to think I always used to believe the rain was just Zeus pissing through a sieve. All right, who makes it thunder? Brrr. I get goose-bumps just saying it.

SOCRATES: The clouds again, of course. A simple process of convection.

STREPSIADES: I admire you, but I don't follow you.

SOCRATES: Listen. The clouds are saturate water solution. Tumescence in [End Page 103] motion, of necessity, produces precipitation. When these distended masses collide—boom! Fulmination.

STREPSIADES: But who makes them move before they collide? Isn't that Zeus?

SOCRATES: Not Zeus, idiot. the Convection Principle! 7

The Serenity of Hellenic Wisdom

We may now leave the Hellenic poets in the pleasant company of their laughter-loving gods and turn our attention to the more sober Hellenic philosophers. Epicurus, the materialist philosopher who developed further the atomic theory of Democritus, calmly declared several cardinal doctrines regarding the value of philosophy for people of every age and the proper attitude of mortal beings toward the immortal and blessed gods:



Those things which without ceasing I have declared unto thee, those do, and exercise thyself therein, holding them to be the elements of right life. First, believe that god is a living being immortal and blessed, according to the notion of a god indicated by the common sense of mankind; and so believing, thou shall not affirm of him ought that is foreign to his immortality or that agrees not with blessedness, but shall believe about him whatever may uphold both his blessedness and his immortality. 8

In admiration of Epicurus and his serene philosophy, Lucretius, a Roman poet and philosopher, declared the following in beautiful verses regarding the proper attitude to the gods:



When human life lay groveling in all men's sight, crushed to the earth under the dead weight of superstition whose grim features lured menacingly upon mortals from the four quarters of the sky, a man of Greece was first to raise mortal eyes in defiance, first to stand erect and brave the challenge. Fable of the gods did not crush him, nor the lightning flash and [End Page 104] the growling menace of the sky. Rather, they quickened his manhood, so that he, first of all men, longed to smash the constraining locks of nature's doors. The vital vigor of his mind prevailed. He ventured far out beyond the flaming ramparts of the world and voyaged in mind throughout infinity. Returning victorious, he proclaimed to us what can be and what cannot: how a limit is fixed to the power of everything and an immovable frontier post. Therefore superstition in its ruin lies crushed beneath his feet, and we by his triumph are lifted level with the skies. . . . O joyless hearts of men! O minds without vision! How dark and dangerous the life is in which this tiny span is lived away! Do you not see that nature is clamoring for two things only, a body free from pain, a mind released from worry and fear for the enjoyment of pleasurable experiences? 9

Consider also how sensibly and tentatively Plato, the greatest of Hellenic philosophers, approached the question of god and his relation to the world. We read the following in a conversation between Socrates and Timaeus:



All men, Socrates, who have any degree of right feeling, at the beginning of every enterprise, whether small or great, always call upon God. And we, too, who are going to discourse on the nature of the universe, how created or how existing without creation, if we be not altogether out of our wits, must invoke the aid of gods and goddesses and pray that our words may be above all acceptable to them and in consequence to ourselves. Let this, then, be our invocation of the gods, to which I add an exhortation of myself to speak in such manner as will be most intelligible to you and will most accord with my own intent. . . . Now that which is created must, as we affirm, of necessity be created by a cause. But the father and maker of this universe is past finding out, and even if we found him, to tell of him to all men would be impossible. This question, however, we must ask about the world. Which of the patterns had the artificer in view when he made it—the pattern of the unchangeable or of that which is created? . . . If then, Socrates, amidst the many opinions about the gods and the generation of the universe, we are not able to give notions which are altogether and in every respect exact and consistent with one another, do not be surprised. [End Page 105] Enough if we adduce probabilities as likely as any others, for we must remember that I who am the speaker and you who are the judges are only mortal men, and we ought to accept the tale which is probable and inquire no further. (Timaeus 27c-29d) 10

The Platonic Socrates, the wisest man who ever lived on earth, according to Apollo's Oracle of Delphi, has shown us how to pray to our god and to all other gods and what to ask for, when we do so, as sensible human beings. He prayed thus: "Dear Pan, and all the other gods who dwell in this place, grant that I may become beautiful within, and that the external goods which I possess may not conflict with the spirit within." 11



Consideration of the calm wisdom of these pre-Christian and pre-Islamic texts is didactic. If compared with the intolerable passions that pervade the revelations of the so-called Holy Scriptures, whether Christian or Muslim, it leaves us with a sad feeling. This feeling is generated by the fact that the faithful and irrational followers of fanatical faiths were the victorious forces, which have shaped European and world history in the last two millennia. We know that things could have turned out differently. We feel that god and the gods did not have to come down so low, to be pulled down to such an extreme, into the mud of human follies, passions, terrors, and atrocities of all kinds.



The god of the Jews and the gods of the Gentiles had existed—whether on Olympus or in heaven makes little difference—for millennia, receiving the offerings of the mortals and occasionally answering their prayers. But the fanaticism of Paul first and Mohammed afterward was determined to make an absolute God the main agent in their attempts to conquer the world by means of faith, fraud, and force. Theirs was actually a devious and aberrant conception of the old Jewish God forced to serve these fanatical faiths, born out of the passions and the follies of these obsessed men. Paradoxically, both of them succeeded, in sequence, to a greater extent than anyone would have rationally expected. But their race is still going on; the struggle between these two young and more viciously fanatic faiths continues. [End Page 106]



The Three Waves of Militant Islam

A look at the world history of the past two thousand years shows clearly that peace did not and cannot exist between believers of these monotheistic and fanatical faiths, or between them and the believers in other gods. As soon as the fanatic Christian followers of Paul acquired political power, they turned their hatred and fury against Greek-Roman polytheism, destroying in the process the beauty of artworks and institutions that had been created by the Hellenic genius and secured by Roman power for centuries. As soon as they had finished with the pagan polytheists, Christians turned their intolerant zeal against each other, their fellow Christians of a slightly different doctrine. "Heretics" of any kind were not tolerated and were eliminated by orthodox believers. With the rise of militant and conquering Islam, Christian fanaticism met its match and was paid back by the same coin. Three waves of militant Islam may be clearly discerned.



In the first wave of Islamic fanaticism, from the seventh to the eighth century, the Byzantine Christian empire lost Alexandria and Antioch, among other great centers of Hellenic and Christian culture in the Middle East and North Africa, and the faithful armies of Allah reached Spain in the west and India in the east. In the second wave of marching Islam (from the fifteenth to the sixteenth century) Constantinople, the seat of the empire, and the Byzantine Empire itself were conquered, while the followers of Mohammed reached Vienna in Central Europe and threatened the holy seat of papacy in Catholic Rome. The third wave of aggressively militant Islam, if the winds of history are favorable and Europe is caught napping again, may very well conquer Vienna, Rome, and Paris and the rest of Europe at long last.



This new wave was stirred at the end of the twentieth century and is now in full sway due to a number of historical factors. The most important of these was perhaps the end of the Cold War, with the collapse of the communist experiment in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. The atheist ideology of Marxism-Leninism and the officially declared atheism of the then- powerful Soviet Union had the unintended effect of bringing closer together the three traditionally hostile monotheistic faiths, especially missionary Christianity and militant Islam. These two fanatical faiths and sister religions had been fighting each other on one or another front from the seventh [End Page 107] to the twentieth century. Facing the common menace of communist atheism, Western Protestant Christianity and the purist form of Islam (Wahabism) joined forces miraculously and fought successfully the communists in many places all over the globe, but especially in Afghanistan.



The ultimate defeat of the invading Soviet forces in Afghanistan in the 1980s was the second important factor that contributed significantly to the rise of the third wave of aggressive and militant Islam. From this fertile ground for fanatical Islamic faith sprang Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda terrorist organization. On 11 September 2001, the hatred and horror of fanaticism reached the heart of the only surviving superpower. The United States was "at war" and ready to fight back. Within months the American military might had dislodged the Taliban regime from its seat of power in Afghanistan, and had thus disturbed the operational basis of al Qaeda. But its leader, Osama bin Laden, is still at large, hiding and threatening revenge, while the United States started a war again in Iraq to disarm Saddam Hussein. The entire Arab and Muslim world is now stirred up once again, just as bin Laden had wished it to be. Hence the need for political foresight and some Hellenic philosophical phronesis.



The Need for Political Foresight

At this critical moment of history, American foreign policy should be extra cautious and dexterous to avoid several pitfalls. It would be a grave mistake if the war against Iraq produces a situation similar to the one the world has witnessed unfolding in Palestine. It would be tragic if the leader of the free world ends up policing the Arab and Muslim Middle East in imitation of Ariel Sharon's government in Israel in its effort to hold down the rebellious Palestinians, who are ready to blow themselves up in the name of God and freedom. The American superpower should have much nobler goals than this. It would be sad if it were true that U.S. policy on Palestine was influenced by "conservative Christians" and based on "biblical prophesy" to the effect that "in order for Armageddon to occur, Israel had to exist so that it could be destroyed." 12 [End Page 108]



It would be equally unwise if U.S. policy makers were to try to imitate the dead Turkish empire in an attempt to bring together Muslims, Christians, and Jews in Palestine or in the wider Middle East, forcing them somehow to live together peacefully. This probably would not work in the long run because it is not acceptable to Muslims. There are three related reasons for this situation: First, there is the belief that Muslims, as true believers, are the truly "chosen people" of Allah and therefore must have a privileged political position, similar to the Prophet's privileged position in prophecy. Second is the Muslim historical experience of rule over Jews and Christians for centuries, which, they believe, gave them the right to mistreat others, especially nonbelievers, as their slaves or as second-class citizens at best. Third is the Muslim perception that, at present, Jews and Christians, particularly Western evangelical and apocalyptic Christians, are conspiring against them as the chosen people, against their true faith, and against their oil-rich sands.



It may appear to some policy makers as a good idea to let different Muslim sects (for example, Sunni and Shiia) fight and exterminate each other in the name of God. In this way, it would become clear at the end who are really the true believers, who are favored by Allah above all else. But, in fact, something like this occurred in the 1980s with the Iraq-Iran war, and although thousands of believers were killed, it failed, ending in a stalemate. Besides, Mohammed, in his political sagacity, has provided the means to his followers for easy and quick replenishment of the ranks of holy fighters by encouraging polygamy and high birth rates. Paul's saintly and otherworldly followers, especially degenerate European Christians, cannot compete with Muslims on this score. Their death rates exceed their birth rates.



Consequently, none of the above, in my view, would be an honorable and long-lasting solution to the Palestinian, the Middle East, and the Muslim problem in general. On the contrary, I think that this is the critical time for the great American democracy to test the power of democracy and freedom, its truly great and ideal weapons, guided by rational philosophic thinking, not by Pauline fanatical faith. Reflective persons may wonder what would happen if the United States, in cooperation with the United Nations, were to declare publicly that all Middle Eastern and other countries that share the Arabic language and the Islamic faith are invited to form a "Union of Democratic [End Page 109] Arab States." This potential UDAS could be patterned on the European Union. 13



Such an enlightened and generous declaration could go even a step further. It could promise that, if the UDAS behaved well and democratically, engaging more in the study of pre-Islamic Hellenic philosophy and less in the study of the Koran, the constituent countries could even be considered as candidates for inclusion in the inner councils of power, such as the G-8 and others. As Socrates would say, this may be just a dream, but it is a dream worthy of serious political and philosophical thinking. It is less costly than war. Why not try it?



Conclusion

A comparison between the utterances of the prophets, the verses of the poets, and the statements of the philosophers makes clear the gap separating their ways of thinking and speaking about the divine and its relationship to human beings. The prophets appeal to the emotions of the believers, excite their hopes, and exploit their fears by promising impossible rewards and threatening terrible punishment to those who do not obey blindly the apostles or the messengers of God, as they like to call themselves dangerously and deceptively. The poets, on the other hand, tend to be more sober than the prophets and willing to play with their gods as they play with great heroes, participants in the drama of life, whether erotic and idyllic or cruel and tragic. The philosophers appear even more cool headed than the poets, detached and prepared to entertain probabilities regarding the divine beings playfully, while they concentrate on human beings with all their follies, virtues, and potential for noble action as well as for horrible crimes.



All things considered then, it would seem that the light of philosophy will probably be dim and the voice of reason inaudible as the clouds of holy wars gather once again and the din of horrific acts of terror multiply. The main but not the only source of the latter will be the awakening of militant Islam once again, just as had happened in the seventh and the fifteenth centuries, contributing [End Page 110] to the creation of the dark ages new in Europe and in the world. One Islamic theocracy is already firmly established in Iran, and others may follow in the near future in Algeria, in Egypt, and even in Turkey, in spite of the latter's democratic pretensions and aspirations for membership in the EU.



The international community cannot accept in the long run the return to dark ages of the past. It should, therefore, take prudent political actions to prevent the coming into being of such medieval theocracies and thus avoid another tragedy like that of Afghanistan, ruled by the Taliban, harboring al Qaeda, and planning acts of unimaginable terror, like those of 11 September 2003. Especially the United States, the only superpower, should act with philosophical restraint and foresight. The war against terrorism should not be allowed to become a clash of civilizations, 14 a new "holy war" between evangelical Christianity and militant Islam.



Fanatical militant Muslims and crusading Christians may learn from the wisdom of Hellenic philosophers and the playfulness of Hellenic poets to let their fanatical God, and the good gods of other peoples, remain in their peace in the heavens, while they try to solve their mortal differences here on earth. Committing atrocities in the name of "the one true" God is the greatest possible folly and blasphemy for human beings to commit. Even if we assume that there is only one god, the God of Abraham (as Muslims, Christians, and Jews claim), linguistically and culturally distinct human groups and individuals are bound to conceive of and express the divine essence differently, according to their ability to think and to speak. God's assumed masks, therefore, tend to be suitable for the mind and ethos of certain men and the masses of human beings influenced by them at a given time. As Xenophanes, an ancient Hellenic philosopher succinctly put it:



If horses and oxen or lions had hands and could make images of Gods,

They would make the gods look like horses and oxen. 15



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Christos C. Evangeliou is professor of philosophy at Towson University and author of several books on classical Greek philosophy, including The Hellenic Philosophy: Between Europe, Asia and Africa.



Notes

1. Paradoxically, the biblical and koranic conceptions of God are supposed to be the same as the archaic conception of God in pious Judaism, but they are not.



2. As we will see, Mohammed, too, will approve of Hell as the place for the eternal torture of nonbelievers, including Jews and Christians.



3. This and the following biblical passages are taken from Good News for Modern Man: The New Testament and Psalms in Today's English Version (New York: Thomas Nelson, 1972).



4. All koranic passages have been taken from The Koran (London: Penguin Books, 1991).



5. Don Belt, "The World of Islam," National Geographic, January 2002, 76-85.



6. A. T. Murray, trans., Homer: The Iliad, XIV (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1985), 291-355.



7. W. Arrowsmith, ed., Aristophanes: Three Comedies (Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan Press), 34-5.



8. "Letter to Menoeceus," in Greek Philosophy after Aristotle, ed. J. L. Saunders (New York: Free Press, 1966), 45-52.



9. B. Radice, ed., On the Nature of the Universe (New York: Penguin, 1987), 29, 60.



10. Edith Hamilton and Huntington Cairns, eds., The Collected Dialogues of Plato (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1971).



11. Plato, "Phaedrus," 279b, in ibid.



12. Nicholas A. Velliotes, "The Bush 'Vision' for Palestine: Realistic or Apocalyptic?" Mediterranean Quarterly 13, no. 4 (2002): 11-20.



13. Of course, these potential unionists would have to come to terms with the State of Israel, which they would have to recognize within borders determined by the United Nations.



14. See Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996), 117-79, 209-18.



15. The translation of the fragment is mine. For more, see G. S. Kirk and J. E. Raven, eds., The Presocratic Philosophers (Cambridge, England: University Press, 1976), 163-81.

Quote:Passenger arrested at Houston airport with jihadist books, a weapon

August 21st, 2010 12:30 am



A passenger from Mumbai, India was sweating and shifting back and forth and fidgeting with his hands as he stood in line at the Intercontinental Airport Terminal E security checkpoint.



When 40-year-old Vijay Kumar was pulled aside for secondary screening, after raising suspicion with Transportation Security Administration 'behavioral detection officers,' even more alarm was raised by what was found.



One law enforcement officer said, "He had a ton of books," including jihadist books and publications written in Arabic. Some focused on espionage and other diagrams seemed to explain how certain US military weapons can be taken apart in the field.



The title of one book was "Spycraft" and another was titled "New Voices of Islam" and police noticed mentions of "infidels" in some of the writings that could be made out clearly.



"It definitely raised our concerns," said one law enforcement official involved in the arrest. "Not your everyday passenger would have this sort of stuff and it definitely poses a concern for anyone involved in airport security," he said.



The books and radical Muslim material was found in stacks, packed in Kumar's carry-on luggage, according to the police report.



Officers also found a pair of brass-knuckles in the luggage he had checked with his airline to be carried in the cargo hold of the aircraft. In Texas, brass-knuckles are prohibited by law so he was booked on a felony charge of Possessing a Prohibited Weapon in a Prohibited Place (airport).



FBI agents were called to the secondary screening area where Kumar was being detained. Agents are now checking his name on terror watch lists and 'no fly' lists, but there is no indication that his name has appeared on any of those lists.



In addition to the brass knuckles and the jihadist publications, police confiscated more than $10,000 in cash that Kumar is accused of carrying on his trip.



Federal law requires anyone carrying $10,000 or more to declare the currency to Customs agents, but law enforcement officials said there was no such declaration for Kumar.



One federal prosecutor said his office was still researching how that law applies in this case since only about $8,000 was in US currency. Several thousand dollars more were made up of foreign currencies, so the prosecutor wasn't sure if Kumar would face charges related to the stacks of cash.



The security alert reached its peak during Friday afternoon's lunch-hour arrest when screeners began their secondary screening of Kumar. A TSA officer pulled out a swab and rubbed it all over Kumar's bags to test for explosives.



Suddenly, the alarm sounded on the testing machine, indicating that the powerful home-made explosive TATP was detected on the bags of this suspicious passenger carrying jihadist publications.



Airport officials said no other passengers were affected and most likely didn't even see any commotion, even during the height of the concerns.



A secondary test was conducted with a new swab being rubbed on his luggage and then placed in a freshly calibrated detection machine. That secondary test came up negative, which security workers say would likely mean the first machine wasn't calibrated properly.



A third explosives test also tested negative and no other indications of explosives were apparent.



Police and FBI agents said they were turning their attention to Kumar's background and what he was doing in Houston, and they're also planning to examine a computer flash drive (or "thumb drive") that Kumar was carrying.



Flash drives can hold thousands of documents or diagrams, but no one had gotten a look at the contents as of Friday evening. A search warrant may be required to view the thumb drive, even though international passengers typically have fewer legal protections when the government wants to look at something they were going to be carrying onto an airliner.



Kumar told police he was in Houston attending an "Islamic seminar." His booking sheet describes him as standing 5'10" and weighing 215 pounds.



A search of federal court records in Houston shows a 2007 lawsuit filed by a man with the same name, same age, and same hometown as Kumar. In that lawsuit, Kumar described himself as a native and citizen of India, who was admitted to the United STates in 2004 on a student visa to the University of Connecticut.



The lawsuit said he had earlier studied at Texas Tech University after entering the US in 2003. He then transferred to University of Connecticut, where the lawsuit said he earned an MBA degree to bolster his undergraduate engineering degree.



The lawsuit said he married a US citizen in 2004 and he filed to change his immigration status to allow him to remain in the US past his student visa in 2005.



His lawsuit claims FBI has been holding up his citizenship paperwork by claiming it couldn't complete the proper background checks.



In the lawsuit, his lawyer writes, "Plaintiffs request that the Court order the Defendants FBI to immediately complete the national security check."



The suit claims the government's refusal to act on his citizenship paperwork is "arbitrary."



It was unclear Friday night whether federal agents would be placing a "hold" on Kumar, which would keep him locked up while further investigation is conducted.



Typically, someone jailed for such a felony weapons charge could post bond and be released within a few hours of arrest. If a federal hold is placed, it could allow him to be locked up for several days without ever facing a federal judge.



He will be facing a Harris County District Court judge on Monday. Court records show he was being held in an "interfacility" jail, which is not considered to be part of the Harris County Jail.



Prosecutors have already filed a motion to request a high bond. The contents of that motion that spell out the specific reasons for requesting a high bond were not available Friday night.



His bond was listed as $50,000, which is already unusually high for this particular felony. The judge could raise or lower that bond at Monday's court hearing.



http://www.examiner.com/page-one-in-houston/passenger-arrested-at-houston-airport-with-jihadist-books-a-weapon