[...Let’s kill all the “Moslems”! ...]

Killing 1.5 billion people is impossible. The next best thing to do is effective Muslim Management. Muslim management implies the following -

1. Recognize that muslims and non-muslims are different people. Period. It is not a question of superiority or inferiority - it is now a well established bifurcation of humanity. We are just different since we follow very different ideologies, mindsets, goals and allegiances. Muslims will never be liberal, secular, democratic etc. It is impossible.

2. All muslims have jihadi tendencies. Some are latent. Others are in your face. Even the hamidms of the world look down on non-muslims.

3. Never let any muslim nation go towards democracy. Democracy actually leads to Hezbollah, Hamas, Iranian mullahcracy i.e. manifest majority muslim feeling. It is much better that muslim nations are kept under dictators like Musharraf, who can be bought or controlled.

4. Encourage divisions among muslims based on sects, ethnicities, language, politics etc. Anything to keep their mind away from jihad and killing non-muslims. Any kind of muslim unity means conflict with non-muslims.

5. In non-muslim countries, thoroughly secularize muslims by integrating them into the mainstream as much as possible. Never let them collect in ghettos or form their sub-identitity. Then their jihadiness will come up again.

6. Since politically and socially muslims and non-muslims are incompatible, create economic linkages. Economics is the only thing that can make the two groups coexist. Large scale economic development of muslims is the best way to manage the jihadi urges among muslims.

Re: # 220

That was like fresh air.........dispelling the hackneyed and predictable stench emnating from Asadis and EchoSqueaks.........

``Ironical Islam`` means you expose the mullahs and show them in their own human predicament........that would certainly be the way out of radical Islamist propaganda that we see from Asadis and EchoSqueaks ................ Chowk is already having its proponents in Hamidm as well as Tahmed..............we need to just let more of these ironical Islamic discourses emerge from the women folk................

Now, this is a worth reading commentary. Well said!

COMMENTARY

`Islamofascism`
By ROGER SCRUTON
August 17, 2006; Page A8

The term ``Islamofascism`` was introduced by the French writer Maxine Rodinson (1915-2004) to describe the Iranian Revolution of 1978. Rodinson was a Marxist, who described as ``fascist`` any movement of which he disapproved. But we should be grateful to him for coining a word that enables people on the left to denounce our common enemy. After all, other French leftists -- Michel Foucault, for example -- had welcomed the revolution as an amusing threat to Western interests. It is only now that people on the left can acknowledge that they are just as much a target as the rest of us, in a war that has global chaos as its goal.

The word has therefore caught on, not least because it provides a convenient way of announcing that you are not against Islam but only against its perversion by the terrorists. But this prompts the question whether terrorism is really as alien to Islam as we should all like to believe. Despite his communist sympathies, Rodinson was a peaceful soul, who spent seven years teaching in a Muslim school in Lebanon and wrote a biography of Muhammad in which the prophet is portrayed as a mild-mannered campaigner for social justice. But this biography was denounced by the Egyptian authorities as an offense to Islam, was withdrawn from the curriculum of the American University in Cairo, and has ever since been banned in Muslim countries.

This readiness to take offense is not yet terrorism -- but it is a sign of the deep-down insecurity of the Muslim psyche in the modern world. In the presence of Islam, we all feel, you have to tread carefully, as though humoring a dangerous animal. The Koran must never be questioned; Islam must be described as a religion of peace -- isn`t that the meaning of the word? -- and jokes about the prophet are an absolute no-no. If religion comes up in conversation, best to slip quietly away, accompanying your departure with abject apologies for the Crusades. And in Europe this pussyfooting is now being transcribed into law, with ``Islamophobia`` already a crime in Belgium and movements across the continent to censor everything at which a Muslim might take offence, including articles like this one.
* * *

The majority of European Muslims do not approve of terrorism. But there are majorities and majorities. According to a recent poll, a full quarter of British Muslims believe that the bombs of last summer in London were a legitimate response to the ``war on terror.`` Public pronouncements from Muslim leaders treat Islamist terrorism as a lamentable but understandable response to the West`s misguided policies. And the blood-curdling utterances of the Wahhabite clergy, when occasionally reported in the press, sit uneasily with the idea of a ``religion of peace.`` All this leads to a certain skepticism among ordinary people, whose ``racist`` or ``xenophobic`` prejudices are denounced by the media as the real cause of Muslim disaffection.

Now of course it is wrong to give gratuitous offence to people of other faiths; it is right to respect people`s beliefs, when these beliefs pose no threat to civil order; and we should extend toward resident Muslims all the toleration and neighborly goodwill that we hope to receive from them. But recent events have caused people to wonder exactly where Muslims stand in such matters. Although ``islam`` is derived from the same root as ``salaam,`` it does not mean peace but submission. And although the Koran tells us that there shall be no compulsion in matters of religion, it does not overflow with kindness toward those who refuse to submit to God`s will. The best they can hope for is to be protected by a treaty (dhimmah), and the privileges of the dhimmi are purchased by onerous taxation and humiliating rites of subservience. As for apostates, it remains as dangerous today as it was in the time of the prophet publicly to renounce the Muslim faith. Even if you cannot be compelled to adopt the faith, you can certainly be compelled to retain it. And the anger with which public Muslims greet any attempt to challenge, to ridicule or to marginalize their faith is every bit as ferocious as that which animated the murderer of Theo Van Gogh. Ordinary Christians, who suffer a daily diet of ridicule and skepticism, cannot help feeling that Muslims protest too much, and that the wounds, which they ostentatiously display to the world, are largely self-inflicted.

To recognize such facts is not to give up hope for a tolerant Islam. But there is a matter that needs to be clarified. Christians and Jews are heirs to a long tradition of secular government, which began under the Roman Empire and was renewed at the Enlightenment: Human societies should be governed by human laws, and these laws must take precedence over religious edicts. The primary duty of citizens is to obey the state; what they do with their souls is a matter between themselves and God, and all religions must bow down to the sovereign authority if they are to exist within its jurisdiction.

The Ottoman Empire evolved systems of law which to some extent replicated that wise provision. But after the Ottoman collapse the Muslim sects rebelled against the idea, since it contradicts the claims of the shariah to be the final legal authority. The Egyptian writer and leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Sayyid Qutb, went so far as to denounce all secular law as blasphemy. Mortals who make laws for their own government, he argued, usurp a power which is God`s alone. And although few Muslim leaders will publicly endorse Qutb`s argument, few will publicly condemn it either. What to us is a proof of Qutb`s fanaticism and egomania is, for many Muslims, a proof of his piety.

Whenever I consider this matter I am struck by a singular fact about the Christian religion, a fact noticed by Kierkegaard and Hegel but rarely commented upon today, which is that it is informed by a spirit of irony. Irony means accepting ``the other,`` as someone other than you. It was irony that led Christ to declare that his ``kingdom is not of this world,`` not to be achieved through politics. Such irony is a long way from the humorless incantations of the Koran. Yet it is from a posture of irony that every real negotiation, every offer of peace, every acceptance of the other, begins. The way forward, it seems to me, is to encourage the re-emergence of an ironical Islam, of the kind you find in the philosophy of Averroës, in Persian poetry and in ``The Thousand and One Nights.`` We should also encourage those ethnic and religious jokes which did so much to defuse tension in the days before political correctness. And maybe, one day, the rigid face of some puritanical mullah will crack open in a hesitant smile, and negotiations can at last begin.

Mr. Scruton is the author, most recently, of ``A Political Philosophy: Arguments for Conservatism,`` just published by Continuum.
URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115577737987837890.html

A befitting reply to kalloo-goraas; East-eats-west`s, BaBa Blacksheep, tota-mainaas & Uniformed Langoors.

---

E-mail it to your friends:

British converts to Islam face 2 kinds of hurdles

By Sarah Lyall The New York Times






Published: August 16, 200


LONDON When he converted to Islam six years ago, said Nicholas Lock, now 24, he faced two immediate hurdles. One was the passive-aggressive hostility of his father, an English professor and Oxford graduate who mockingly asked, ``Do we have a convert on our hands?`` and then proceeded to cook pork for dinner - bacon, sausages, minced pork - every night for a week.

 

The other, and more potentially difficult in its way, was the greedily opportunistic reaction of various Muslim groups to Lock when he arrived at the University of Leeds to begin his studies that fall. Sensing fresh blood, they fell upon him as if he were a prodigal son.

 

``As a new convert, when you first become a Muslim, a lot of people try things out on you,`` said Lock, who also uses the Muslim given name Mahdi, and who now runs a support network for Muslim converts in Nottingham. ``They want you to come to this meeting, this talk. Certain radical groups want you because you`re impressionable and it looks good to get white guys.``

 

Lock likened some of the organizations that approached him, like Hizb al- Tahrir - which says it is nonviolent but preaches the establishment of pan-Islamic governments and has been banned from some Middle Eastern countries - to cults. ``They think you don`t know anything, and they pounce.``

 

The potential vulnerability of converts to Islam, particularly young men, is particularly relevant now with the news that at least three of the men arrested last week on suspicion of plotting to use explosives to blow up trans- Atlantic airplanes were converts to Islam. Neighbors and friends of the men have said that at least from the outside, it appeared that the transformations of the men, to highly observant Muslims from aimless Western youths who caroused with their friends, were precipitous and complete.

One of the suspects, Abdul Waheed, is the son of a local Conservative political official who is said to have converted, changing his name from Don Stewart-Whyte, within the last year, before being purportedly caught up in the terrorist plot.

Richard Reid, the so-called shoe bomber, was a British- born convert to Islam. He was convicted in the United States of trying to set off bombs hidden in his shoes to blow up a plane in 2001 and is now serving a life sentence.

There are no official statistics on how many converts to Islam live in Britain. Yahya Birt, a research fellow at the Islamic Center in Leicestershire, puts the number at slightly over 14,000, an extrapolation based on the number of people who said they were Islamic converts in the 2001 census in Scotland (the census in England and Wales did not ask about conversion).

Only a minuscule percentage of converts turn to active radicalism, and there are widely varying reasons why people convert in the first place, including an admiration of Islamic texts and practices; a desire by women to remove themselves from what they perceive as the sexualization and sexism of Western life; a rebellion against parental liberalism; and a sense of political outrage at Western policies in, for instance, Iraq and Lebanon. But among young people in Britain, a common theme seems to be adolescent anomie, a longing for answers in a world achingly full of difficult questions.

``It`s not a physical thing - it`s a passionate approach,`` said Khalad Walaad, a spokesman for the Bradford Islamic Center in the north of England. ``When someone is looking for something, it`s us who can lead him as a human being.``

Myfanwy Franks, a researcher who has studied converts to Islam, said that ``being troubled does not necessarily lead people to conversion - people who aren`t troubled convert - but it could lead to extreme radicalization.``

 

Speaking of reports in the news media that Waheed was a heavy drinker and user of drugs before his conversion, Franks added: ``I think there`s a tendency for some people, when they stop using some kind of addictive substance, to be left with a big hole in their lives, and to do something extreme is the easiest way to go, because it fills that big hole.``

Britain has a number of high-profile converts, including Birt, 38, the son of John Birt, the former director-general of the BBC; Joe Ahmed-Dobson, 30, the son of Frank Dobson, a former Labour health secretary; and the singer Yusuf Islam, who was once known as Cat Stevens.

erhaps the highest-profile woman convert is Yvonne Ridley, a former correspondent for The Sunday Express, who began studying Islam after she was kidnapped by the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001.

``I was gobsmacked by what I was reading,`` said Ridley, who was raised a Protestant. ``The Koran promotes peace and tolerance and understanding, and the esteem in which it holds women is breathtaking.``

Now the host of a daily current-affairs talk show on the Islamic Channel, Ridley, who wears a hijab that covers her hair and neck, said that Islam for her was a welcome antidote to Western libertinism. Since her conversion, men are more respectful, she said: They don`t tell dirty jokes around her, they don`t touch her, and they don`t hit on her hidden;


She feels so strongly about the importance of modest clothing that when she was challenged by a Danish reporter, she recounted proudly, ``I said, `Listen, darling, if you want to look like a slapper and a whore and dress like a tart, it`s up to you, but don`t expect me to do it, too.
She explained: ``What`s more liberating - being judged on the size of your IQ or on the size of your bust?``
Divorced, with a 13-year-old daughter, she has stopped drinking and having flings. ``I never sit in, waiting for the telephone to ring,`` she said, ``and I`m never dragged in to immaterial rows by inconsiderate, useless men.``
Many converts are apolitical, but for people like Ridley, who says that ``this war on terror is a war on Islam,`` religion is inextricably bound with politics. Increasingly, that seems to be the case, among Muslims in general, and among converts.
``It`s become much more political since 9/11,`` said Franks, the researcher, who is the author of ``Women and Revivalism in the West: Choosing Fundamentalism in a Liberal Democracy.``
Before Sept. 11, converts tended to discuss spiritualism and personal choice, she said, ``but now they`re not talking like that.`` She added: ``I think there`s this polarization now, that either sort of with us or against us. It`s like the middle ground has disappeared.`` Where women once began wearing only a head scarf, now - even in her hometown of Bradford, in west Yorkshire - Franks says many more are walking around in a head-to-toe garment that covers even the eyes and is meant to protect women from men`s desire. ``It`s a political statement,`` she said.
For young white men in economically blighted sections of the north, where jobs are scarce and disaffection is high, she said, Islam speaks to their masculinity, offering a place of refuge and a solid base from which to reject their heritage.

``The greater Muslim community is transnational and supranational,`` she said. ``It gives them an identify and a togetherness which is inevitably going to be against the West, because of their identity with other Muslims.``

``An equal number (if not more) of Jehadis would be present in India too- albeit without state patronage. They would have to be eliminated in the same manner. ``

Surely.....if Indian state fails to act comprehensively against those terrorists and goons who may try to stage war against outside countries then other countries have the right to bomb these camps.................I would agree and infact welcome other countries to make me get rid of my filth................the issue here is the failure of Lebanese state machinery and the Pakistani state to act against these terrorists within their area of jurisdiction..........

Let us try to imagine the medium term future. The US/ UK media has now started pointing fingers at Pakistan.

Does that mean that a comprehensive thrashing (threshing???) of Pakistan and the flushing out of the Jehadis is now increasingly imminent !!!!!!

An equal number (if not more) of Jehadis would be present in India too- albeit without state patronage. They would have to be eliminated in the same manner. Also, once we are on an elimination spree, might as well get rid of the myriad Senas, Dals, Leagues & Fronts which keep cropping up and preach hatred.

Perhaps it would be better for both countries to take extreme measures and set their own houses in order. We do not need an Israel/ USA to take care of our own homegrown Hezbollahs.

Let’s kill all the “Moslems”! ???

The author appears to be speaking on behalf of whom, I failed to understand??

He says that majority of the Americans believe in what he stated. Is he not reiterating he conspiracy theory pushed by the mullahs or Is he speaking on behalf of some of the extreme right wingers in other communities.

I think we all are having an overdose of Zionist conspiracies against muslims all over the world on Chowk............Chowk has become the Mina Valley for every Pakistani.......

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

#213 It`s a tossup. either way, the current state of affairs wont last too long - and change will come in ways no one can envision. as change always does.

Re: # 211

> The most progressive parts of the world ....
... are going to be dragged back by the tribals. The liberals have ensured that.

Subject(s): Public Opinion US, Religion Islam Muslim
Local Area(s): United States of America
August 13, 2006 at 09:23:48

Can a good Muslim be a good American?

by Sameh Abdelaziz


http://www.opednews.com

Simplicity is and will continue to be America`s greatest threat. To win the war on terror, we need to identify analyze and understand the real enemy. It took America fifty years to understand communism, and only then we became the victors. The question becomes who is the enemy? Is it Islam the religion? Is it American Muslims? Or is it extremism?
I will not answer the question, but I think it needs to be studied, especially considering that at most conservative estimates the Muslims represent 21% of the world population http://www.adherents.com/religions_by_adherents.html, some information about Islam as a religion can be found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/islam.

Now, to attempt to answer the loaded question on hand, Can a good Muslim be a good American? We have to address the three distinctive parts of the question:
1- What is a good Muslim?
2- What is a good American?
3- The specific statements about Islam as a religion (12 points)


What is a good Muslim?
I quote from the Holy Quran: ``It is not righteousness that you turn your faces towards East or West; but it is righteousness to believe in God and the Last Day and the Angels, and the Book, and the Messengers; to spend of your substance, out of love for Him, for your kin, for orphans for the needy, for the wayfarer, for those who ask; and for the freeing of captives; to be steadfast in prayers, and practice regular charity; to fulfill the contracts which you made; and to be firm and patient in pain (or suffering) and adversity and throughout all periods of panic. Such are the people of truth, the God-conscious.`` (2:177)
http://www.the-islam-way.com/download4.html

What is a good American?
A good American is a person that abides by the law, loves his family, works hard, volunteers in his community and defends his country. Defending your country sometimes means disagreeing with its policies which is guaranteed by our constitution. The polls suggest that over 70% of the population think that the country is heading in the wrong direction. Does this mean 70% of the population is bad Americans?
The first amendment guarantee these rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/first_amendment_to_the_united_states_constitution


The specific statements about Islam as a religion (12 points)

Can a good Muslim be a good American?
I sent that question to a friend who worked in Saudi Arabia for 20 years.

Theologically - no. Because his allegiance is to Allah, the moon god of Arabia.
As a matter of fact, the Arabic literal translation for Almighty God, ``Allaah``, is quite similar to the word for God in other Semitic languages - for example, the Hebrew word for God is ``Elah``. The moon god of Arabia, I`m not even sure what this means!

Religiously - no. Because no other religion is accepted by his Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256)
All religions believe that it is the righteous religion, if you are a Christian then you have to accept Jesus as your savior or risk being thrown in hell fire at the day of judgment. Islam is no different. On the other hand Muslims are instructed to believe in all religions that proceeded Islam including Judaism and Christianity. Islam also in the same verse mentioned by the writer states clearly that ``There is no compulsion in religion``. For more detailed explanation of the verse and discussions on the text please see:
http://answering-islam.org/hahn/mappe.html


Scripturally - no. Because his allegiance is to the five pillars of Islam and the Quran (Koran).
The five pillars of Islam are the logistics of becoming a Muslim; it has nothing to do with allegiance. This is the equivalent of having no allegiance to America because you accepted Jesus as savior or because you believe in the ``Ten Commandments``. Information on the 5 pillars of Islam can be found in this web site:
http://www.islam101.com/dawah/pillars.html


Geographically - no. Because his allegiance is to Mecca, to which he turns in prayer five times a day.
Mecca is the most holy place for Muslims. To help you understand, it is the Vatican for Catholics. Are Catholics geographically not good Americans?

Socially - no. Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.
The Qur`an says, ``Not all of them are alike: of the People of the Book (Christians and Jews) are a portion that stand (for the right): They rehearse the Signs of God all night long, and they prostrate themselves in adoration. They believe in God and the Last Day; they enjoin what is right, and forbid what is wrong; and they hasten (in emulation) in (all) good works: They are in the ranks of the righteous. Of the good that they do, nothing will be rejected of them; for God knows well those that do right.`` (Quran, 3:113–115)
http://islam-usa.net/en/a.49868.html

Politically - no. Because he must submit to the mullah (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and Destruction of America, the great Satan.
Islam is the only religion that doesn`t recognize a hierarchy and there is no medium between any Muslim and their god. The Mullah mentioned here is a title for a scholar in the Afghan language so it is not even Arabic. The following verses of Quran outline the relation between people.
``O believers, be you securers of justice, witness for God. Let not detestation for a people move you not to be equitable; be equitable - that is nearer to God-fearing.`` (5:8)
``...Whoso slays a soul not to retaliate for a soul slain, nor for corruption done in the land, should be as if he had slain mankind altogether.`` (5:32)
``One who kills a man under covenant (i.e., dhimmi) will not even smell the fragrance of Paradise.``
``You who believe, do not let one (set of) people make fun of another set.`` (49:11-12)
``Do not defame one another.`` (49:11-12)
``Do not backbite or speak ill of one another.`` (49:11-12)
``Do not spy on one another.`` (49:12)
``Do not enter any houses unless you are sure of their occupant`s consent.`` (24:27)

http://www.the-islam-way.com/download9.html
Domestically - no. Because he is instructed to marry four women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34).
Islamic countries such as Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia (the most populace Islamic country), had women premiers and presidents since the late sixties. The Quran never instructed men to marry four, to the contrary the number four in Islam was the beginning of restricting multiple marriages. Multiple marriages with no limits were acceptable practice previous to Islam, and many prophets had multiple wives, Abraham and Isaac are just two examples. Also Islam puts very restrictive rules on multiple marriages, rules that would guarantee the women and the children full rights, including the right of the woman to divorce her husband.
Regarding the treatment of women in Quran:
``O ye who believe! Ye are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should ye treat them with harshness, that ye may take away part of the dower ye have given them,-except where they have been guilty of open lewdness; on the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If ye take a dislike to them it may be that ye dislike a thing, and Allah brings about through it a great deal of good. (Quran 4:19). More examples of verses can be found at: http://www.islamfortoday.com/womens_rights_references.htm

Intellectually - no. Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.
Another misguided conception in many ways, although all founding fathers were Christians, religion makes only one direct and obvious appearance in the original Constitution that seems to point to a desire for some degree of religious freedom. That appearance is in Article 6, at the end of the third clause. So, it is obvious that the constitution is based on the same universal principals which all religions are based on not only Christianity. Also, the constitution is dear especially to minorities such as Muslim Americans since it guarantees their rights as well as others. http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_reli.html#original

Philosophically - no. Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist.
Quran summed up the concept of Democracy in the following verse ``Whose affairs are a matter of consultation`` (42:38) http://www.islamonline.com/cgi-bin/news_service/spot_full_story.asp?service_id=781

Islam also guarantee freedom of religion and expression
http://www.the-islam-way.com/download9.html

Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.
Once again, assuming that the statement is correct there is a major difference between the theory and the application. The fact that many Arabic and Muslim governments fail the test has nothing to do with the religion. Iran and Gaza are clear examples of theological governments that are democratically elected governments - by the western standards.

Spiritually - no. Because when we declare ``one nation under God,`` the Christian`s God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran`s 99 excellent names.
Actually many of the 99 names would translate to loving and heavenly, http://www.jannah.org/articles/