• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Islamism - 7
Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat..
Frontline ^ | Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book

<b>Islam is not a religion nor is it a cult. It is a complete system.</b>

Islam has religious, legal, political, economic and military components. The religious component is a beard for all the other components.

Islamization occurs when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their so-called "religious rights."

When politically correct and culturally diverse societies agree to "the reasonable" Muslim demands for their "religious rights," they also get the other components under the table. Here's how it works (percentages source CIA: The World Fact Book (2007)). As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness:

United States -- Muslim 1.0%

Australia -- Muslim 1.5%

Canada -- Muslim 1.9%

China -- Muslim 1%-2%

Italy -- Muslim 1.5%

Norway -- Muslim 1.8%

At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs:

Denmark -- Muslim 2%

Germany -- Muslim 3.7%

United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7%

Spain -- Muslim 4%

Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%

From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. They will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. (United States).

France -- Muslim 8%

Philippines -- Muslim 5%

Sweden -- Muslim 5%

Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%

The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5%

Trinidad & Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world. When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions (Paris -- car-burnings). Any non- Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats (Amsterdam -- Mohammed cartoons).

Guyana -- Muslim 10%

India -- Muslim 13.4%

Israel -- Muslim 16%

Kenya -- Muslim 10%

Russia -- Muslim 10-15%

After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning:

Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%

At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare:

Bosnia -- Muslim 40%

Chad -- Muslim 53.1%

Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%

From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels:

Albania -- Muslim 70%

Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4%

Qatar -- Muslim 77.5%

Sudan -- Muslim 70%

After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide: Bangladesh -- Muslim 83%

Egypt -- Muslim 90%

Gaza -- Muslim 98.7%

Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1%

Iran -- Muslim 98%

Iraq -- Muslim 97%

Jordan -- Muslim 92%

Morocco -- Muslim 98.7%

Pakistan -- Muslim 97%

Palestine -- Muslim 99%

Syria -- Muslim 90%

Tajikistan -- Muslim 90%

Turkey -- Muslim 99.8%

United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%

100% will usher in the peace of "Dar-es-Salaam" -- the Islamic House of Peace - there's supposed to be peace because everybody is a Muslim:

Afghanistan -- Muslim 100%

Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100%

Somalia -- Muslim 100%

Yemen -- Muslim 99.9%

Of course, that's not the case. To satisfy their blood lust, Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons. <b>"Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; and the tribe against the world and all of us against the infidel.</b> -- Leon Uris, "The Haj"

It is good to remember that in many, many countries, such as France, the Muslim populations are centered around ghettos based on their ethnicity. Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. Therefore, they exercise more power than their national average would indicate.

Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat..


A guy stops a car in the city of Shiraz in Iran and asks the driver to give him some gasoline, pretending that his car has run out of fuel. The total stranger siphons gas from his own car and gives it to him. Suddenly some other guys show up from their hiding places, tie the man to a tree, douse him with the gasoline he had generously given to a total stranger, set him on fire and speed away in the sham “out-of-gasoline” car. Why? The target of the torching was a non-Muslim, a Baha’i. The “sin” of not being a Muslim made him a deserving party for being burned alive. These thugs of Allah, the savage torchers, call themselves the Unknown Soldiers of the Lord of the Age, (Imam Zaman) the Shiite’s much revered and expected savior.
He is very excited and is looking forward to his shahadat by hanging, the day he will achieve paradise as promised by Allah (9.111)

----The promise of paradise for "martyrs" is made in 9.111 (Koran)
----The biggest "martyrdom" event the world knows occurred on 9/11

A highly educated well to- do true Islamic father sent his only two sons to a Madarsa in Karachi to be trained in quran and hadiths (Masahallh ,that is a true islam, all US muslims must follow his example). These young boys who were brought up in a comfortable home in a US suburb, now live in a nasty rundown Madrasa hostel.

In US they had their own beds, now they have to share them (many imams have been accused of sharing beds with their students). Their hostel is unsanitary and fly infested, their cots have bed bugs and their toilets stink. They live in sweltering heat of Karachi without A/C .

Instead of watching TV, they have to listen to Imams scaring s--t out of them with description of torture in graves and fires of hell. Instead of playing ball seven times a week, they are praying salat five times a day. In US they used to dream of becoming a doctors and making a lot of money . Now they dream of becoming a shaeeds and copulating with 72 virgins.. First they hated it there and cried daily, now after three years of true islam, they learned to love it.

Here is the video showing how they changed in three years. Such is the power of islam. Full credit and sawab goes to their father, who sent their bright boys to Madarasa instead of preparing them for Ivy League schools like many of his colleagues did.. Jazakallah Khair.

In this madrasa alone there are about 80 such US citizen kids. The good news for USA is that there are 20,000 madrasa in Pakistan. Inshallah when thousands of these Madrasa graduates return to USA, they will be able to fulfill the dream of CAIR, that is establishing Sharia here ( founder of CAIR Omar M. Ahmad had said: "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth,").

(above site)
<!--emo&:bhappy--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/b_woot.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='b_woot.gif' /><!--endemo--> Very important. Each word is like a 72-faceted diamond. Required reading.

<b>The Demise of Islam?</b>
by Abul Kasem/Jamie Glazov

17 Jul, 2008

From FrontPageMagazine.com on July 15, 2008

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Abul Kasem, an ex-Muslim who is the author of hundreds of articles and several books on Islam including, Women in Islam. He was a contributor to the book Leaving Islam – Apostates Speak Out as well as to Beyond Jihad: Critical Views From Inside Islam.

FP: Abul Kasem, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Kasem: Good to be here Jamie.

FP: We’re here today to discuss the potential demise of Islam and the fact that the Prophet Muhammad actually predicted this demise himself – a fact that sounds somewhat odd and that many are unaware of. What is the best way to start a discussion of this issue?

Kasem: Well, I would start by asking this question: could the current civilization ever imagine a world without Islam?

To many, this might sound like a dim-witted question. After all, Islam has been with us for fifteen hundred years. It just doesn’t even seem thinkable that Islam could possibly die out. Currently, after all, Islam is the raging storm afflicting every part of the world, especially with the mayhem of the Islamist terrorists and the escalating oil prices – and oil largely flows from a few Islamic lands. The leaders of the un-Islamic world are busy pleasing Islam in whatever manner. Even the United Nation’s Human Rights Organisation has just passed a resolution disallowing discussion of how Islam violates fundamental human rights in many Islamic paradises. In this context, it seems almost impossible to imagine a world free of Islam.

FP: Absolutely, and it is totally unrealistic to think that Islam will ever disappear.

Kasem: No. Despite the world situation that I just painted, what you say is not true at all.

FP: Please explain.

Kasem: We learn from the annals of Islamic history that Islam is not that powerful and that it is actually very vulnerable. Much evidence suggests that it may very well die under its own weight.

FP: Fair enough, please expand.

Kasem: There is a secret life of Islam and it may very well lead to the death of Islam. The history of Islam, for instance, tells us that Islam needs blood to thrive. Human blood is the life-line of Islam, violence its hallmark, and hate its foundation. <b>In the beginning, Islam lives on the blood of infidels. When that is unavailable, or becomes difficult, Islam must cannibalize itself.</b> As a car needs gasoline to run, so does Islam need human blood just to run its own course, set by Muhammad, its Prophet.

FP: Sounds very much like communism. It starts off extinguishing the “class enemy” and then when there are no more external “enemies” to slaughter, the killing machine turns on itself. Terror takes on a life of its own and the killing machine devours its own children and then ultimately engages in suicide. This totalitarian impulse ultimately stems from a death wish.

Kasem: Precisely. And so the demise of Islam is inherent in the very seed of Islamic cannibalism. And so to understand why Islam, eventually, will self-destruct we must first learn a few lessons from the annals of Islamic history. Let me briefly paint the picture:

During the last few decades we have witnessed Islamic cannibalism right, front and center. The most recent event was the Iran-Iraq war, in which millions of Muslims were killed, not by the infidels (kafirs) but by Muslims. Undoubtedly, in not-too-distant a future, we are bound to witness many such events of Islamic cannibalism.

FP: Is Islamic cannibalism theologically rooted?

Kasem: Absolutely. The earliest example of Islamic cannibalism, after all, is found in the Qur’an itself -- in verses 9:108-110. These verses refer to the gutting of a rival mosque on the instruction of Muhammad, when he was returning after his expedition to Tabuk, a resourceful town in the Syrian-Byzantine territory. This Islamic incursion story goes like this:

Proceeding further from Tabuk on his way to Medina, Muhammad halted at Dhu Awan at Quba (about 4 kms. from Medina), an hour’s journey from Medina. There, an opposition Muslim group had built a mosque. Previously, while Muhammad was making preparations for the march to Tabuk, this group of Muslims approached him and said, “O Messenger of God, we have built a mosque for the sick and needy and for rainy and cold nights, and we would like you to visit us and pray for us”(The History of al Tabari, vol.ix, p.61). Busy with his preparations for Tabuk expedition, Muhammad excused himself from visiting this newly-built mosque, but assured the dissident group that he would call on their mosque while returning to Medina (from Tabuk).

On his return journey from Tabuk and halting at Dhu Awan, Muhammad accused builders of this mosque of being unjust. Without any warning, he sent a band of jihadists to burn and destroy the freshly constructed mosque. He said to his band of hooligans, “Go to this mosque whose owners are unjust people and destroy and burn it” (ibid, p.61). His band of raging arsonists stealthily entered the bustling mosque and set fire to it when it was filled with people assembled for the evening prayer. The worshippers dispersed in utter terror. Allah promptly sent down verse 9:107, 110, justifying the destruction of opposition mosques. To further validate his gutting of this mosque, Muhammad concocted the story that he suspected that the builders of the ‘Mosque of Dissent’ were planning to assassinate him.

FP: So what is this story in the Qur’an teaching? What is its message?

Kasem: Those verses of the Qur’an, when taken in true Islamic spirit, can only mean one thing: the call for the devastation of rival mosques. The most important question is: which mosques are genuinely Islamic and which mosques are not so Islamic? Since there is no central authority in Islam to decide on this, it becomes a moot-point. It is, therefore, a free-market in Islam when it comes to destruction and bloodshed.

FP: The consequences?

Kasem: <b>The consequences are obvious and inevitable: Sunnis are free to destroy Shia mosques; the Shias are permitted to destroy Sunni mosques; both these groups are free to destroy Ahmedi or Kurdish mosques, and so on. Within each group there are sub-groups and they are also entitled to commit such atrocities on other groups. This is exactly what is going on in almost all Islamic Paradises</b>.

In Iraq, Sunnis are destroying Shia mosques and murdering them. In Pakistan, Sunnis are killing the Shias and burning their mosques. Then the Shias are avenging this by destroying Sunni mosques. In Bangladesh, both the Sunnis and the Shias are occupying Ahmedi mosques and setting them on fire. This musical chair of mosque-burning and killing is proceeding unabated, each group claiming they are the true Muslims. Each group is adamant they are absolutely following the Qur’an and Sunna (Muhammad’s deeds and examples), the two principal sources of Islam.

Interestingly, this fratricide is unstoppable, as the Islamic Ummah is far from monolithic. No one knows the precise divisions among the Ummah. But Muhammad had predicted that the Muslims will be divided into seventy-two sects, each one killing one another, and together killing the infidels.

FP: So Muhammad actually himself predicted this cannibalism with Islam itself? Give us the theological evidence.

Kasem: Yes he did. There are many ahadith that discuss Muhammad’s prediction about his Ummah. Let me give a few:

<b>Seventy-two of the seventy-three Muslim sects will go to hell; only one of the sects will be in Paradise; it is the majority group</b>…(Sunaan Abu Dawud, 3.40.4580)

Islam has seventy branches…(Sunaan Abu Dawud, 3.40.4659)

Whoever creates disunity in the Islamic community kill him…(Sunaan Abu Dawud, 3.40.4744)

In a note (footnote 4153), the English translator of Sunaan Abu Dawud, Professor Ahmad Hasan admits that it is permissible to ‘cannibalize’ dissident Islamic group/s. He writes: ‘The Prophet (may peace be upon him) did not tolerate disunity and schism among Muslims. Therefore, he ordered that, instead of causing separation and disagreement in the community, it is better to kill the person who causes disunity.’

Another hadis (Sunaan Abu Dawud, 40.4747, Sahih Bukhari, 4.55.577) asks to murder those Muslims who are insincere in their faith. This hadis even tells that Allah loves the Muslims who kill those insincere Muslims.

FP: Tell us a few major sects and sub-sects of Islam:

Kasem: Here are some of the main ones:

Sunnis: Hanafi, Shafii, Maliki, Hanbal




Submitters (Qur’an only Muslims)



Shia: Jaffri, Islamilia, Zaidiah, Yazdis










Needless to say, each group (and sub group) thinks they are the true Muslims, and only they have the right to practice Islam. Thus often, they cannibalize one another. There is no tolerance, compromise or truce among these groups.

FP: Tell us about a few more cases of Islamic cannibalism that were perpetrated during the nascent stages of Islam.

Kasem: Well, I mentioned the very first Islamic cannibalism mentioned in the Qur’an. Ever since then, the practice of killing Muslims by Muslims is truly endemic. During the time of Khulafa Rashedin (the rightly guided caliphs) this cannibalism took a serious turn, sparing not even the two last caliphs, ‘Uthman and Ali. Both of them were murdered by savage Islamic cannibals. <b>Among these two cases of Islamic cannibalism, perhaps the murder of ‘Uthman stands out to be the most aghast</b>. Here is how it was carried out, as described by Tabari (The History of al Tabari, volume XV, p219-20):

…Muhammad b. Abi Bakr, accompanied by Kinanah b. Bishr b. ‘Attab, Sudan b. Humran and ‘Amr b. al-Hamiq, reached ‘Uthman by climbing over the wall from the house of ‘Amr b. Hazm. They found ‘Uthman, with his wife Na’ilah, reading the Surah of the Cow from the Qur’an. Muhammad b. Abi Bakr came up to them and seized ‘Uthman’s beard. “May God disgrace you, you hyena,” he said. ‘Uthman replied, “I am no hyena. I am God’s servant and the Commander of the Faithful. ”Muhammad said, “Neither Mua’wiyah nor anyone else has been of any use to you.” ‘Uthman said, “Son of my brother, let go my beard. Your father would not have gripped like this.” Muhammad replied, “Had my father seen you doing these things, he would have denounced you for them, and I mean to do worse to you than grab your beard.” ‘Uthman said, “I seek God’s help and support against you.” Then Muhammad pierced his forehead with a broad iron-tipped arrow that he was holding. Kinanah b. Bishr raised some arrows of the same kind that he was holding, and plunged them into the base of ’Uthman’s ear down to his throat. Then he fell on him with his sword until he killed him.

According to ‘Abd al-Rahman—Abu ‘Awn:

Kinanah b. Bishr struck his forehead with an iron bar. He pitched forward, face down, and Sudan b. Humran al-Muradi beat him after he had fallen and killed him.…As to ‘Amr b.al-Hamiq, he jumped on ‘Uthman and sat on his chest—he was still barely alive—and stabbed him nine times. ‘Amr said, “I stabbed him three times for God’s sake and six times because of the anger in my breast against him.”

If we are troubled reading those passages, we must remember that all of those who ‘cannibalized’ ‘Uthman were impeccable Muslims—the most ardent jihadists, belonging to the stock of Muhammad the Hashim clan of the Quraysh.

This Islamic cannibalism did not end there. The cycle continued until Aisha (Prophet Muhammad’s dearest wife), along with two of her brothers-in-law, Talha and Zubayr set out to avenge ‘Uthman’s murder. When she reached al-Basrah, a rebel stronghold, she killed (by beheading) six hundred of the suspected rebels who had ‘cannibalized’ ‘Uthman. Ali, being sucked into the vortex of this cannibalistic cycle, set out to punish Aisha’s gang.

The result: ten thousand Muslims, including Talhah and Zubayr lay perished in al-Basrah, equal in proportion from both sides. Aisha’s life was spared by the cannibals, but her camel was hamstrung.

In Islamic history this is known as the Battle of the Camel. This is perhaps one of the most moving examples of how Islamic cannibalism really perpetuates a never-ending cycle of violence and mayhem. This is the reason why we shall never observe a let up to the succession of Islamic cannibalism in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Egypt or Sudan.

The narration of this very important chain of cannibalism will remain incomplete till we learn the fate of all the participants sucked into this whirlpool of cannibalism and counter cannibalism.

The following passages, adopted from Tabari’s Tarikh al-Tabari (vol. xvii) illustrate very briefly how this cycle of Islamic cannibalism continued, and will continue:

Muawiyah b. Abi Sufyan, the governor of Syria and a close relative of caliph ‘Uthman demanded from Ali the handing over of the killers of ‘Uthman. When Ali refused to comply with this request, Muawayiah b. Abi Sufyan, and his right-hand man, ‘Amr b. al-‘As (the deposed governor of Egypt), became open enemies of Ali. They gathered forces and set off to attack Ali. Ali met this force at Siffin. Fearful of defeat at the hands of Ali’s fierce and well-trained army, Muwayiah and ‘Amr devised quite an innovative trick. Their soldiers attached copies of the Qur’an at the tip of their lances and raised them high in air. Ali’s soldiers went in stupor and were hesitant to charge their enemy, lest they trample the Holy Qur’an. Both sides remained standstill—the battle became a stalemate. In the end, both parties agreed to stop fighting and decided on a speedy negotiated settlement by appointing an arbiter from each side. Having mutually reached this agreement, both sides separated and returned.

But not everyone on Ali’s side was happy with his prompt decision. A faction of Islamist extremists thought judgment belonged to Allah and Ali’s decision to appoint arbiters for a peaceful settlement is contrary to Islamic principle. This dissident group of Ali was known as the Kharijites. They insisted that Ali resume fighting. But Ali could not renege on his treaty of a peaceful settlement. The Kharijites declared Ali to be a sinner and asked him to repent. Initial attempt by Ali for reconciliation with the Kharijites met with feeble success. So, ultimately, Ali had to cannibalize the cannibals. He had to fight a major battle at the canal of Nahrawan, east of river Tigris in Iraq. This battle ended with a merciless mass slaughter of the Kharijites. But this cannibalization did not completely eradicate the Kharijite problem. Many Kharijites survived this genocide, went into hiding, and some of them returned to Kufa (Ali’s headquarter in Iraq) stealthily. A few of them went to Egypt.

FP: Let’s get back to Muhammad. He gave the instructions for -- and paved the foundation to -- Islamic cannibalism. He also, in this context, made a prediction in regards to Islam’s demise, correct?

Kasem: Yes, he predicted the demise of Islam.

As strange and as unbelievable as it might appear in these days of unremitting Islamic terrorism and Islamic cannibalism, Muhammad himself had predicted the decline of Islam. Comparing Islam with a snake, he likened Islam to be confined between the mosques of Mecca and Medina. Please read these Sahih ahadith from Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim:

Belief returns and goes back to Medina like a snake...(Sahih Bukhari, 3.30.100)

There will be no trace of Islam in some believers...(Sahih Bukhari, 9.84.65)

Islam was initiated as something strange, and it would revert to its (old position) of being strange, and it would concentrate between the two mosques just as the serpent crawls back into its hole…(Sahih Muslim, 1.0270)

The Islamic faith will recede to Medina just as the serpent crawls into its hole…(Sahih Muslim, 1.0271, 0272)

Allah needs sinners… (Sahih Muslim 37.6620, 6622)

Muslims will diminish in number and they will go back to where they started…(Sunaan Abu Dawud, 2.19.3029)

Muslims will be the scum and the rubbish even though their numbers may increase; the enemy will not fear Muslims anymore. This will be because the Muslims will love world and dislike death…(Sunaan Abu Dawud, 37.4284)

Muhammad’s contemporaries were the best Muslims; after three generations, the Muslims will be mainly treacherous and untrustworthy… (Sahih Bukhari, 5.57.2, 3)

Muslims will be destroyed through the hands of some Quraysh young men…(Sahih Bukhari, 9.87.180)

There will be much killing during the last days of the Muslims…(Sahih Bukhari, 9.88.183)

And here are a few excerpts from the greatest of all Islamic minds, al Ghazali:

Muhammad said Islam began with a few and will soon return to a few as it began. The few of those true Muslims are those who follow to purify Muhammad’s sunnah and follow strictly his traditions…(Ihya Ulum al Din by Ghazali, Tr. Fazl-ul-Karim. First edition. Darul Ishat, Karachi, 1993. p.1.49).

Muhammad said, “The wealth of a Muslim in near future will be goats and sheep. He will roam in caves of hillocks and places of water. He will shift from one place to another with his religion and calamities.”…(ibid, p.2.142)

Muhammad said, “In near future such a time will come upon man when it will be difficult to save his religion. To save religion he will flee away like a jacket from one cave to another and from one hillock to another.”…(ibid)

FP: Ho do we understand Allah's mindset in all of this?

Kasem: It is impossible to understand Allah’s mind. In many verses He threatens infidels with severe punishment, including death if they do not convert to Islam. However the Qur’an also demonstrates Allah’s frustration. <b>Allah is so disappointed with Muhammad’s performance that He promises to send a beast as a final messenger (27:82). In verse 68:51 Allah admits that the Qur’an had made Muhammad a mad man, thus implying that Muhammad, after all, could not be trusted to save Islam. To accentuate Muhammad’s mental instability Allah says in verse 41:36 that Allah let Satan confuse Muhammad. In verses 38:82 83 Allah admits that He let loose Iblis, the Satan; He did not want to control Iblis. This means Satan is more powerful than Allah. </b>Thus, it is imperative that eventually, Satan will triumph and destroy Islam. This, of course, is the desire of Allah, as nothing may transpire without Allah’s wish. Allah even admits that He loves to sow discord about His Book (the Qur’an, 41:45).

FP: So what do we conclude from what you have demonstrated here today?

Kasem: We can conclude that there is a certain ending to Islam and that those who wish for it do not necessarily need to do anything. All that is needed is to let it run its own course. It is bound to self-destruct, if we are to learn from the lessons of Islamic history. The un-Islamic world just needs to protect itself with strict security measures, never letting the various groups of Islam unite to kill the infidels. Once the infidels learn the secret life of Islam, it is simply a matter to watch how Islam implodes. <span style='color:green'><b>Once the Islamic oil runs dry, once the world secures a reliable source of energy to replace oil, once the infidels stand together, and once the infidels become iron-resolute to contain Islam in their lands, Islam will die a natural death. </b> </span>FP: Abul Kasem, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview.

Kasem: My pleasure Jamie.
That was interesting reading. The article is right in making this claim. What should be of concern to us is, when they do self destruct, will they take Indic civilization along with it.

The worst case scenario would be that Islam succeeds in making India Dar-ul-Islam before it implodes.

We would have lost the war by then and it would hardly matter what happens after that.

It's possible west is trying to push the theatre of war into South Asia. This was Sandhya Jain's assessment in her Spitzer essay.
Yes, infact we can see a facet of this with the American use of pakistan. They are unwilling to destroy the real source of terrorism as that will only make India stronger. The only reason the global war on terror is the global war on terror is b/c of 9/11. Had terrorism stayed away from N.America, none of this would be happening.

The subcontinent is ideally suited for the west to egg on both forces to take each other out. The partition conceived by the British was not only to assist them in their great game but to turn the power of the subcontinent on itself.

If you look at the subcontinent today, you have the largest concentrations of muslims in an uneasy truce with the largest concentrations of kaafirs. Both sides armed with WMDs and with a wide variety of pressure points susceptible to foreign manipulations.

There was a repeat telecast of that "Honor killing in America" on FOX yesterday.
I tuned in in the middle, and this muslim woman (speaking in the dark to protect her ID) was asked to comment on how the men who do this honor killing say it is islam. The woman said "they do not know what Islam is about". <!--emo&Tongue--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tongue.gif' /><!--endemo-->

Then they showed a woman who has written books on the subject, herself an ex-muslim (I am guessing) who said that it is Islam. She said muslim men need to do only a few of these killings to keep the rest of the women in line. She was asked why honor killing has increased of late. She said is is becos jihad has increased. Jihad hates West, and a liberated woman is a symbol of the west.

Like I posted before, one of the testimonies of a muslim from saudi on faithfreedom.org says that a muslim can kill his daughter and tell the judge he did it to preserve the good name of islam, and judge has to let him go (in saudi) since Mohamed said unmarried woman is her father's property.
Masnavi-i-Manavi (or simply 'Masnavi') was written by Mavlana Jalal-ud-deen Rumi (1207-1273), who is so much celebrated by seculars, westerns and pseudo-Hindus alike as the towering liberal light of Islam. Masnavi is often mentioned by them as the very cream of Sufi thought.

By reading this most primary text on Sufism, one gets an idea of how libreal Mavlana and contemporary Sufis were. I quote one passage from the second book of Masnavi, translated by E. H. Whinfield:

"Though the object of all men's being is wisdom,
Yet each man has a different place of worship.
The place of worship of the noble is nobility,
The place of worship of the base is degradation.
Smite the base to make them bow the head.
Give to the noble to make them repay liberally.
Inasmuch as the base are evil and arrogant,
Hell and humbling are the "small gate" for them.
Verily God has created two places of adoration,
Hell for the base and increased bliss for the noble.
Even so Moses made a "small gate" in Jerusalem,
To make the Israelites bow the head in entering it."

The much celebrated persian book on the highest altar of Soof is a fine example of anti-semitic, anti-kafir, anti-pagan/idolator rhetoric, some times in a subtle way, but many times more explicitly. (And by the way the book borrows heavily from pan~chatantra, hitopadesha and jAtaka, and then most times subverts the meanings of the popular tales into islamic propoganda.)
Jefferson's Quran: What the founder really thought about Islam
by Christopher Hitchens

11 Jan, 2007

It was quite witty of Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., to short-circuit the hostility of those who criticized him for taking his oath on the Quran and to ask the Library of Congress for the loan of Thomas Jefferson's copy of that holy book. But the irony of this, which certainly made his stupid Christian fundamentalist critics look even stupider, ought to be partly at his own expense as well.

In the first place, concern over Ellison's political and religious background has little to do with his formal adherence to Islam. In his student days and subsequently, he was a supporter of Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam, a racist and crackpot cult organization that is in schism with the Muslim faith and even with the Sunni orthodoxy now preached by the son of the NOI's popularizer Elijah Muhammad. Farrakhan's sect explicitly describes a large part of the human species—the so-called white part—as an invention of the devil and has issued tirades against the Jews that exceed what even the most fanatical Islamists have said. Farrakhan himself has boasted of the "punishment" meted out to Malcolm X by armed gangsters of the NOI (see the brilliant documentary Brother Minister: The Assassination of Malcolm X, which catches him in the act of doing this). If Ellison now wants to use his faith to justify an appeal to pluralism and inclusiveness and diversity, he needs to repudiate the Nation of Islam, and in much more unambivalent terms than any I have yet heard from him.
As to the invocation of Jefferson, we know that when he and James Madison first proposed the Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom (the frame and basis of the later First Amendment to the Constitution) in 1779, the preamble began, "Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free." Patrick Henry and other devout Christians attempted to substitute the words "Jesus Christ" for "Almighty God" in this opening passage and were overwhelmingly voted down. This vote was interpreted by Jefferson to mean that Virginia's representatives wanted the law "to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahomedan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination." Quite right, too, and so far so good, even if the term Mahomedan would not be used today, and even if Jefferson's own private sympathies were with the last named in that list.

A few years later, in 1786, the new United States found that it was having to deal very directly with the tenets of the Muslim religion. The Barbary states of North Africa (or, if you prefer, the North African provinces of the Ottoman Empire, plus Morocco) were using the ports of today's Algeria, Libya, and Tunisia to wage a war of piracy and enslavement against all shipping that passed through the Strait of Gibraltar. Thousands of vessels were taken, and more than a million Europeans and Americans sold into slavery. The fledgling United States of America was in an especially difficult position, having forfeited the protection of the British Royal Navy. Under this pressure, Congress gave assent to the Treaty of Tripoli, negotiated by Jefferson's friend Joel Barlow, which stated roundly that "the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen." This has often been taken as a secular affirmation, which it probably was, but the difficulty for secularists is that it also attempted to buy off the Muslim pirates by the payment of tribute. That this might not be so easy was discovered by Jefferson and John Adams when they went to call on Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman. They asked him by what right he extorted money and took slaves in this way. As Jefferson later reported to Secretary of State John Jay, and to the Congress:

The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.

Medieval as it is, this has a modern ring to it. Abdrahaman did not fail to add that a commission paid directly to Tripoli—and another paid to himself—would secure some temporary lenience. I believe on the evidence that it was at this moment that Jefferson decided to make war on the Muslim states of North Africa as soon as the opportunity presented itself. And, even if I am wrong, we can be sure that the dispatch of the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps to the Barbary shore was the first and most important act of his presidency. It took several years of bombardment before the practice of kidnap and piracy and slavery was put down, but put down it was, Quranic justification or not.

Jefferson did not demand regime change of the Barbary states, only policy change. And as far as I can find, he avoided any comment on the religious dimension of the war. But then, he avoided public comment on faith whenever possible. It was not until long after his death that we became able to read most of his scornful writings on revelation and redemption (recently cited with great clarity by Brooke Allen in her book Moral Minority: Our Skeptical Founding Fathers). And it was not until long after his death that The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth was publishable. Sometimes known as "the Jefferson Bible" for short, this consists of the four gospels of the New Testament as redacted by our third president with (literally) a razor blade in his hand. With this blade, he excised every verse dealing with virgin birth, miracles, resurrection, and other puerile superstition, thus leaving him (and us) with a very much shorter book. In 1904 (those were the days), the Jefferson Bible was printed by order of Congress, and for many years was presented to all newly elected members of that body. Here's a tradition worth reviving: Why not ask all new members of Congress to swear on that?

And here's a tradition worth inaugurating: The Quran repeats and plagiarizes many passages of the New Testament, including some of the most fantastic and mythical ones. Is it not time to apply the razor and produce a reasonable Quran as well? What could be more inclusive? What could be a better application of Jeffersonian original intent?

<b>Muslim workers sacked by US meat plant</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The sprawling slaughterhouse, located about 100km north of the state capital, Denver, has sacked more than 100 Muslim employees who walked off the job today after their employers refused to allow them to break their Ramadan fast with prayer, food and water.

<b>Simmering tensions between Hispanic immigrants, mainly from Mexico, and Muslim factory workers, most of them Somalis, erupted during Islam’s holy month when the Muslim employees asked management to shift the break time on the afternoon shift to sunset.</b>

Iftar and its accompanying prayers occur at about 7.15pm in Colorado, or halfway through the late shift at the Greeley factory, one of the largest beef-processing plants in the United States. Muslim employees said they begin their daily fast at 4.30am, some 14 hours earlier.

A statement from Swift said managers had agreed with union officials to shift the break earlier by more than an hour to accommodate the fasting workers.
<b>“On Friday many employees walked off of the job without proper authorization,” the Swift statement said. “This action is a direct violation of our collective bargaining agreement</b>.”

US law protects freedom of religion, and orders US firms to accommodate their employer’s faith where possible. But legal experts say Ramadan poses complex challenges for massive processing plants like the one in Greeley, because it’s not simple to shift break times for 3,000 employees, and productivity falls when hundreds of workers suddenly leave the production line.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have a question for HH and kram or rhytha

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"state power in India had been snatched from Muslims by the British and surreptitiously handed over to Hindus in 1947" is a lie of Muslims on the lines of "9/11 was planned by the Jews." The Muslim propagandists live in a make-believe world and are experts at pretending that other people's land somehow belongs to them. They still lay claim to Jerusalem because of the "fact" that <b>Mohammad visited jerusalem in the course of one night from Arabia by sitting on Al Baraq, a giant white horse with great wings, the face and breasts of a woman and the tail of a peacock.</b>

Is there any similar such creature in the mythology of any other people than the illusions of Mohammed?

I recall seeing some such figure in South Indian temple dwarams. I may be totally wrong but try to dig for it.

OK Here it is:

<img src='http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/hindux.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' />

Now need to find out where did The Hindu get it from!

Was he influenced by South Indian temple imagery? The temple in Singapore also has such a figure if I recall.
Peacock motif was introduced by Mittanis to the ME; this was explicated originally by Brentjes. I cannot remember which of the OIT authors drew the obvious Indic connection - maybe Sethna. Also, Mohammad's female antagonist was named Hind.

<!--QuoteBegin-dhu+Sep 19 2008, 04:09 PM-->QUOTE(dhu @ Sep 19 2008, 04:09 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Peacock motif was introduced by Mittanis to the ME; this was explicated originally by Brentjes.  I cannot remember which of the OIT authors drew the obvious Indic connection - maybe Sethna.  Also, Mohammad's female antagonist was named Hind.

The Peacock feathered horse motif is pre-Mohammed and Indic in origin. There is a sUkta in maNDala 3 of RV that states that indra's horse is mayura-roman:

A mandrair indra haribhiryAhi mayUraromabhiH |
mA tvA kecin ni yaman viM na pAshino.ati dhanveva tAnihi ||

Feathered/winged horses have extensive presence in the pagan world but it is possible that the secular Hindu got it from an Islamic source -do not know <!--emo&Big Grin--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->

So he was stealing a Rigvedic concept in order to reinforce the memes of the Arabic people.

H^2 can you translate the exact sloka you quoted above.

also any of you noted the symbol on SI temples? I recall seeing it on the Singapore temple entrance doors.

What does roma mean Isnt it haired! So its peacock feathered.
I think the winged woman -horse is one of the zorastrian angels
which the arabs picked up

Another probability is that it is one of the goddesses of the babylonians, passed onto the arabs
If its Persian then how is it there in the RV and on South Indian temple dwaras? A friend suggested it could be a yakshini in Jain theogony. Still its intriguing that an Indic concept was usurped by Muhammed.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Murder as tradition </b>
D Suba Chandran
<b>Baluchis defend burying five girls, women alive</b>
These are centuries-old traditions, and I will continue to defend them," thundered Israr Ullah Zehri, a Senator from Baluchistan, in Pakistan's Parliament on August 29, 2008. Obviously, the people of any democracy would love to see their elected representative defend their traditions, especially if it is centuries old. But what is the tradition that the Senator was defending? He was referring to the shooting of five women in Baluchistan by armed men, sometime in July 2008, and then burying the injured women alive.

No one is quite sure when this barbarism took place, though it came to light after the Asian Human Rights Commission made an urgent appeal in mid-August. The five women -- including two married women and three unmarried teenagers -- were about to leave for Usta Mohammed in Jafarabad district. Since the three girls wanted to marry men of their choice, which was not approved by their elders, they had decided to get married in the civil court in Usta Mohammed. A group of six armed men abducted the women, fired at the three girls, and then buried them alive. When the two elder women, an aunt and a mother of the victims, protested, they were also buried alive.

Who is responsible for this crime? What prompted it? And how has the state reacted? Abdul Sattar Umrani, who led the killing squad, is a brother of Sadiq Umrani, who is a PPP member of the Baluchistan Provincial Assembly and a Minister. Abdul Sattar Umrani, according to the Asian Human Rights Commission report, was also involved in a similar killing in January 2006, when his armed men killed three people, including a couple, who were about to get married in a civil court in Nasserabad district. Despite the intervention then by Iftikhar Chaudhary, the deposed Chief Justice, Abdul Sattar Umrani could not be arrested, thanks to the police and the local judiciary.
I was not sure where to post, so posting here. A hilarious encounter of (the ghost of) Mohammed with bhojadeva is described in bhaviShyapurANa like this:

pratisarga-parvan, khaNDa-3, Chapter-2,

haniShyAmi durAchAraM vAhIkaM puruShAdhamaM...

rAtrau sa devarUpashcha bahumAyAvishAradaH
paishAchaM dehamAsthAya bhojarAjaM hi sobravIta
Aryya-dharmo hi te rAjan sarvadharmottamaH smR^itaH
IshAj~nA kariShyAmi paishAchaM dharmadAruNam
liMgachChedI shikhAhInaH shmashrUdhArI sa dUShakaH
uchchAlApI sarvabhakShI bhaviShyati jano mama
vinAkaulaM cha pashavasteShAm bhakShyA matA mama
musalenaiva saMskAraH kushairiva bhaviShyati
tasmAn musalavanto hi jAtayo dharma-dUShakAH
iti paishAchadharmashcha bhaviShyati mayAkR^itaH(23-27)

I am going to slay this fellow of corrupt character, the worst of all men of arabia
(saying this, this brAhmaNa performed a prayoga by which muhammad was burnt down, and killed this way he bacame a ghost, and the ghost became the god that mlechCha-s of arabia worship!)
At night, that god (of mlechCha-s, muhammad) being an expert of mAyA
Appeared in body of a ghost to bhojadeva and thus spoke
'King, this Arya-dharma of yours is best of all religions
(but what to do!) I am only following the orders of Shiva/God in creating this horrible religion of ghostly nature
(in which) these corrupt ones slit their genital, keep no shikhA, grow beards,
shout in a high pitch (to God), eat everything; such are my people
without any lineage (as they can marry anyone!); devouring even animals,
-- (I am not sure of the complete meaning of musala and kusha in this line. The surface meaning is simple, but may mean more) --,
such are those musalman jatis, corrupter of dharma,
and this is what becomes of the ghostly religion started by me...

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)