Thursday, September 30, 2010

What Went Wrong ? ? ?

In 2005, Dr Farrukh Saleem wrote:

The combined annual GDP of 57 Muslim countries remains under $2 trillion. America, just by herself, produces goods and services worth $10.4 trillion; China $5.7 trillion, Japan $3.5 trillion and Germany $2.1 trillion. Even India’s GDP is estimated at over $3 trillion …Muslims are 22 percent of the world population and produce less than five percent of global GDP. Even more worrying is that the Muslim countries’ GDP is going down over time. The Arabs, it seems, are particularly worse off. According to the UN Arab Development Report: “Half of Arab women cannot read; One in five Arabs live on less than $2 per day…”
At least six of the poorest of the poor are countries with a Muslim majority.
Fifty-seven Muslim majority countries have an average of ten universities each for a total of less than 600 universities for 1.4 billion people; India has 8,407 universities, the U.S. has 5,758. Over the past 105 years, 1.4 billion Muslims have produced eight Nobel Laureates while a mere 14 million Jews have produced 167 Nobel Laureates.
Of the 1.4 billion Muslims 800 million are illiterate (6 out of 10 Muslims cannot read). In Christendom, adult literacy rate stands at 78 percent.
Muslims are poor, illiterate and weak. What went wrong?

More Isam to cure ? ? ?
or get rid of it ? ? ?

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Respect of rights is a reciprocal affair.

Sergei Bourachaga returns with a follow-up to his earlier article about the Koran’s hate speech, extending his argument to take in the legal case against Geert Wilders.just a snippet

Muslim communities in Canada, the Netherlands, and all Western Democracies in general, if they want respect of their rights and bring an end to the contempt the West has for an Allah who advocates terrorism to spread his will, should display the courage to remove any passage from the Koran that demonizes and dehumanizes Jews and Christians. Muslims must become the very change they want to see in Western liberal societies.

Respect of rights is a reciprocal affair. If you want respect from others who do not share your religious convictions, you have to extend respect first, and the first thing Muslims should respect is the freedom of expression and the freedom of the press. Like many Westerners who have said it and done it before, they should adopt the maxim: “I may not like what you said about me, but I will sacrifice my life for your right to say it”. They should stop justifying every butchery of innocent civilians by pointing fingers at the injustices imposed by the West on Muslims in Iraq, Palestine, etc. India has endured the brutality of British imperialism for centuries, yet it managed to liberate itself from the yoke of British brutality without firing a single bullet. It did so by relying on the spiritual power of a giant named Mohandas Karamachand Gandhi. Despite the presence of a huge Indian community in Britain since the early days of British colonialism in India, not a single Indian strapped explosives into his body and walked into a London subway to settle scores with the British population for all the injustices heaped on the children of India.

The same tragedy applies to the Blacks or Afro-Americans. Despite centuries of slavery, oppression, and bloody exploitation of innocent blacks by white European settlers looting North America, not a single black committed an act of suicide bombing inside a white restaurant in the Southern States where racial fanaticism was the dominant reality of the region.

The same applies to the Native Indians of North America, uprooted by European settlers, starved and massacred like animals, they never took a school hostage and butchered 300 children, like Islamist militants did in Beslan in southern Russia to settle scores with those who treated them unjustly.

The time has come for Muslims who honestly reject the violence promoted by radicals from within the ranks of Muhammad’s followers, to adopt an attitude of courage and remove the passages in the Koran advocating violence against Jews and Christians. In the Native Indian tradition, “courage is not the absence of fear. It is the dedication to do the right thing despite the presence of fear.” All supporters of freedom of expression should stand united in their fight to contain Islamic fanaticism, and systematically pressure Attorneys general, MPs, and political decision-makers in every Western government to stop the prosecution of Geert Wilders and throw in prison or deport those who use the book to justify violence against other religions simply because they don’t adhere to the same principles promoted by Islam.

Failure to do so will precipitate the ruin of Western democracies in ways beyond our knowledge.

Saturday, September 25, 2010

What Woman Want

HarryGlicken (2) Says:

September 25th, 2010 at 2:52 pm
This is one for mnij, mnij SCROLL DOWN ,somethingMNIJ dosnt do,A LIFE CHOISE
Subject: King Arthur and the Witch

Young King Arthur was ambushed and imprisoned by the monarch of a neighbouring kingdom. The monarch could have killed him but was moved by Arthur’s youth and ideals. So, the monarch offered him his freedom, as long as he could answer a very difficult question. Arthur would have a year to figure out the answer and, if after a year, he still had no answer, he would be put to death.

The question?…What do women really want? Such a question would perplex even the most knowledgeable man, and to young Arthur, it seemed an impossible query. But, since it was better than death, he accepted the monarch’s proposition to have an answer by year’s end.

He returned to his kingdom and began to poll everyone: the princess, the priests, the wise men and even the court jester. He spoke with everyone, but no one could give him a satisfactory answer.

Many people advised him to consult the old witch, for only she would have the answer.

But the price would be high; as the witch was famous throughout the kingdom for the exorbitant prices she charged.

The last day of the year arrived and Arthur had no choice but to talk to the witch. She agreed to answer the question, but he would have to agree to her price first.

The old witch wanted to marry Sir Lancelot, the most noble of the Knights of the Round Table and Arthur’s closest friend!

Young Arthur was horrified. She was hunchbacked and hideous, had only one tooth, smelled like sewage, made obscene noises, etc. He had never encountered such a repugnant creature in all his life.

He refused to force his friend to marry her and endure such a terrible burden; but Lancelot, learning of the proposal, spoke with Arthur

He said nothing was too big of a sacrifice compared to Arthur’s life and the preservation of the Round Table.

Hence, a wedding was proclaimed and the witch answered Arthur’s question thus:

What a woman really wants, she answered….is to be in charge of her own life.

Everyone in the kingdom instantly knew that the witch had uttered a great truth and that Arthur’s life would be spared.

And so it was, the neighboring monarch granted Arthur his freedom and Lancelot and the witch had a wonderful wedding.

The honeymoon hour approached and Lancelot, steeling himself for a horrific experience, entered the bedroom. But, what a sight awaited him. The most beautiful woman he had ever seen lay before him on the bed. The astounded Lancelot asked what had happened

The beauty replied that since he had been so kind to her when she appeared as a witch, she would henceforth, be her horrible deformed self only half the time and the beautiful maiden the other half.

Which would he prefer? Beautiful during the day….or night?

Lancelot pondered the predicament. During the day, a beautiful woman to show off to his friends, but at night, in the privacy of his castle, an old witch? Or, would he prefer having a hideous witch during the day, but by night, a beautiful woman for him to enjoy wondrous intimate moments?

What would YOU do?

What Lancelot chose is below.
BUT….make YOUR choice before you scroll down below.

Noble Lancelot said that he would allow HER to make the choice herself.

Upon hearing this, she announced that she would be beautiful all the time because he had respected her enough to let her be in charge of her own life.

Now….what is the moral to this story?

Scroll down

The moral is…..
If you don’t let a woman have her own way….
Things are going to get ugly….
Kris K (3,100) Says:

September 25th, 2010 at 3:02 pm
HarryGlicken 2:52 pm,

The moral is…..
If you don’t let a woman have her own way….
Things are going to get ugly….

While the above may be true for women (I actually think most women don’t even know what they want), perhaps the opposite is in fact true for Islam:

The moral is…..
If you DO let Islam have its own way….
Things ARE going to get ugly….

"Cold War"

Patrick L. Moore

Despite the much celebrated Israeli/Palestinian settlement, Yasser Arafat recently made some curious statements during a trip to South Africa, especially for a man supposedly promoting authentic peace in the Middle East. First, he called for "a jihad [i.e. an Islamic Holy War] to liberate Jerusalem."[1] After vehement protests by the Israelis and Americans, he "clarified" that comment by saying he meant a "peaceful" jihad. Second, he described the PLO/Israeli agreement as of no more significance than the Pact of Hudaibiya (a treaty signed between the Prophet Muhammad and the Quraish tribe of Mecca in 628 A.D.).[2] That agreement was supposed to last ten years, but it soon proved to be a Carthaginian peace for the Quraish and it was abrogated the next year by the Muslims at the first opportunity, leading to the fall of Mecca and the victory of Islamic forces in Arabia.[3] "Hudaibiya" is especially noteworthy because "[i]n later times, the agreement ... served as the prophetic precedent, to determine the Shari`a [Divine Law] rules governing the interruption of the jihad for negotiation and truce."[4] The lesson of Hudaibiya referred to by Arafat, then, was that no "peace" with non-Muslims could be final.[5]
What must be realized about Arafat's statements is that they are specifically relevant and meaningful on an important, objective level and are not mere hyperbole or fundamentalist cant. The references to jihad and the Pact of Hudaibiya are compass headings to the heart of traditional Islam. They are not decipherable as such, however, without adopting an attitude of respect for Islam itself as a proclaimed world faith and candidate guide to ultimate truth, which also involves a similar respect for the factual history of Islam, its internal development and its interactions with the world of the West. If American policymakers are to properly understand Islam they must strive to overcome the dominant Western prejudice of "modernism" which sees all religions as mere irrational, personalist and primitive superstition, functionally irrelevant to public affairs (except, perhaps, as psychologically symptomatic). Functional and philosophical modernism is an attitude of intellectual immaturity or carelessness which has blinded American policy decisions in the Middle East and elsewhere in this century.[6] To deal effectively with Muslims and Islam, Americans must first respect Islam and come to know it as it really is - especially the history and meaning of jihad.

There are five especially critical aspects about Islam's doctrine of jihad which must be brought out to properly understand the significance of Islam as it relates to the United States and the West.[7] In summary, the meaning of jihad in its primary sense is military and coercive; it is central to the universalist doctrine of the Islamic belief system; its operational aim is political domination of non-Islamic territories (i.e. rather than forced conversion); it is offensive or aggressive in nature in the first instance (and not merely "defensive"); and, finally, jihad is continuous in character (i.e. pending the ultimate victory of the forces of Islam).

jihad is primarily "military" in character. The term jihad has both a common and a legal meaning - but its legal meaning has become the primary definition. In its common (rather than technical) meaning it describes a state of effort or striving, in the sense of "exerting oneself as much as one can." However, jihad in its legal sense (as adopted by Islam in application to the formal relations between Muslim and non-Muslim peoples) is defined (according to historically attested Islamic authorities) as, e.g. "fighting the unbelievers by striking them, taking their property, demolishing their places of worship, smashing their idols and the like." Whenever the term jihad is used without qualification (as when Arafat first used it in his un-"clarified" comments in South Africa) it always means the "jihad of the Sword," i.e. "fighting the unbelievers for religion's sake."[8] Some modern Islamic apologists (as with the waffling Arafat), try to deflect or redirect attention from the traditional Islamic, military meaning of the duty of jihad by equivocating, ignoring or minimizing its legal meaning in favor of its common or informal meaning of "spiritual striving."[9] The effort simply does not square with the historical evidence and juridical teachings over the centuries. Although the term originally contained a non-military significance, it has historically been defined by the Islamic authorities of note in its doctrinally military and combative sense.[10] (Additionally, jihad is not the same as "just war," as defined in the Western tradition of that name, although some try to say so or imply it.[11] Not every just war is a Christian holy war or Crusade.[12] Just War, in the first and Western sense, has always meant a morally "permissible" rather than a holy, laudatory or mandatory war. Just Wars may be fought while Holy Wars or Crusades should be fought. On the other hand, all jihad is "holy war" by inherent meaning as a term in religious law or fiqh. In Islam, it is only religious war which is licit—i.e. jihad[13].)

Furthermore, jihad is not a peripheral or subsidiary doctrine of Islam (as is the "Just War" theory of Christendom). jihad is actually at the active center, the core, the ratio and raison d'etre of Islam. It has sometimes been called the "sixth" pillar of Islam, the unnamed key-stone resting on the explicitly named "five pillars" or essentials, i.e.: profession of the faith (Shahada), ritual prayer (Salat), fasting in Ramadan (Sawm), pilgrimage to Mecca (Hajj) and almsgiving (Zakat).[14] Above all, jihad is the enabling mechanism, the method of choice, for the announced goal of Islamic universalism. It is the "name" for the duty of a striving Islamic universalism itself. jihad, in its primary military/ideological sense, is the mandated vehicle of Islamic "universalism" (i.e. the religious claim that Islam is the true faith to whose temporal as well as spiritual authority the whole world must submit).[15]

Islam itself means "submission" while "Muslim" means one who has submitted" to the will of Allah.[16] The initial operational goal of Islamic universalism, its missionary extension into the lands of unbelief, is the political subjugation of the non-Islamic world.[17] Islam requires Muslims to strive to impose Muslim rule on the non-Muslim world in order to, in effect, make the world safe for Islam—i.e. the enforcement of Shari`a or divine law. jihad should not mistakenly be confused with forced conversion— which is not allowed under Islam.[18] Forced conversion is not the purpose of jihad, but rather its aim is political conquest and control. "The warriors of Islam had as their immediate concern the subjugation, rather than conversion, of the unbelievers."[19]

Historical Islam sees jihad as an affirmative duty which is operationally offensive or aggressive (in the traditional military sense) and not merely "defensive." Modern Islamic apologists sometimes assert that jihad is now only "defensive," but their definition of that concept is highly questionable.[20] As one commentator noted: "[J]ustifications for launching an Islamic 'defensive' war may include "justifications for war that are not recognized in public international law" and "assertions that Islam allows wars only in self-defense must be subjected to scrutiny to ascertain whether the Islamic concepts of self-defense being used do in fact correspond to the concepts of international law."[21] For instance, cited Islamic causes for initiating war include showing hostility, opposition to the mission of Islam or contempt for it (which are all religious reasons in the nature of refusing a call to convert or submit to the forces of Islam or failing to treat Islamic missionaries with respect) and, therefore, resistance to Islamic universalism or lack of respect for the Islamic faith or its mission is classically considered a casus belli or aggression against Islam.[22]

The Islamic "modernist" interpretation of so-called defensive restrictions on jihad actually arose within Islam after the failure of the Great Mutiny in India in 1857 which left the Indian Muslims (reputed to have strongly supported the rebellion) socially, politically and militarily isolated and exposed to British retribution. Some Indian Muslim intellectuals endeavored to redefine the classical doctrine of Islam so as to avoid a direct, religious/ideological confrontation with the superior colonial might of the British Empire. A similar effort was involved in Egypt, but there the Islamic revisionists insisted that "defense" included opposition to colonial administrations as well. Both positions were not in accord with the fundamentalist or orthodox opinion of the majority of Muslims who saw the duty of jihad in the primary, classical sense of expansionary geopolitical struggle to dominate non-Muslim territories whenever feasible.[23]

The bedrock doctrine of Islam which impels the duty of jihadic universalism is that one must "command the good and forbid evil."[24] Compare this to the critical (and less geopolitically compelling) foundation of Christianity which says that one should strive to do good, and avoid that which is evil.[25] Similarly, Islam commands the faithful to "slay them [i.e. the unbelievers] wherever ye find them"[26] while Christianity merely enjoins "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations ... ."[27] The difference is not just academic. Under the belief system of classical, orthodox Islam, a Muslim cannot be genuinely free or exercise "freedom of religion" unless he is in command of society.[28] Therefore, the duty of the Muslim is to strive in all ways to expand Islam and to subjugate the non-Islamic world to Islamic power.[29] "Until that happens, the world is divided into two: the House of Islam (dar al-Islam), where Muslims rule and the law of Islam prevails; and the House of War (dar al-Harb), comprising the rest of the world. Between the two there is a morally necessary, legally and religiously obligatory state of war, until the final and inevitable triumph of Islam over unbelief."[30] Offensive (expansionary) military jihad is the constant duty of the community as a whole while strictly defensive jihad becomes a personal and particular obligation as well.[31] Even when it is defensive, however, it is not always so in the sense we have come to define that word.[32]

Finally, jihad is and must be permanent. jihad is "a permanent obligation upon the entire Muslim community."[33] It may pass into periods of dormancy,[34] but the obligation of jihad can never end short of the complete subjugation of the non- Muslim world.[35] This is the principle implied in the precedent of Hudaibiya as alluded to by Yasser Arafat (a principle which is the operational expression of strict Islamic universalism). Treaties can never be more than truces.[36] Always and at some level, Islam is at war with the non-Islamic world. While there may be an interruption of open hostilities between the West (or any other non-muslim territory) and Islam in specific cases, or even a "peace" with Muslims who choose not to adhere to traditional Islamic teaching in this regard, there can never be peace between unbelievers and Islam, i.e. orthodox, historical Islam.[37] In fact, under the orthodox Islamic doctrine of jihad, relations between the House of Islam (Islamic territory) and the House of War (territories of unsubjugated unbelievers) can never ameliorate past the level of low- intensity conflict or Islamic "insurgency" against the infidels.[38]

To so describe the authentic Islamic doctrine of jihad is not to in anyway malign Islam or Muslims, no more so than describing the orthodox Catholic teachings on an all male clergy, divorce and artificial birth control would be to insult Roman Catholics. All it says is that those teachings and doctrines are, in fact, what they are. The orthodox doctrine of jihad has been historically announced and defined.[39] Those who would argue that it has changed (contrary to the historical record of thirteen centuries) bear a serious and heavy burden of proof to establish that proposition, especially to the satisfaction of Islam's rank and file. There is great pressure on modern Islam to "get with it" and dispense with its less "modern" or fashionable doctrines.[40] As one traditional Islamist put it: "In order to be strong, we are told, we must reject 'traditional' interpretations of the Quran and read it 'rationally' in the light of modern life."[41] However, as the encyclopedist D. B. Macdonald said: "Islam must be completely made over before the doctrine of djihad [sic] can be eliminated."[42]

Individual Muslims will, of course, make their own decisions in the world of everyday life, but it is no small thing to remember that, while they are free to ascribe to something other than the orthodox, classical doctrine of jihad, what they espouse will not be genuine, mainstream Islam. A Catholic who supports a right to procure an abortion is not promoting a Roman Catholic doctrine. A Muslim denying the duty of jihad would be in a similar situation. They may so profess, but they are no longer professing historical, orthodox Islam.[43]

Islam is a strong and robust religion driving a rich family of cultures which, for good or ill, are not the same as ours in the West. Islamic values and beliefs are often different from Western values and beliefs which are based on a competing Judaeo/Christian and Classical heritage, despite certain common origins and roots. To gloss over those differences is irrational and potentially dangerous.[44] For American policy makers to ignore the unique character of Islam and its tenets could be catastrophic. Someone once said, apparently in a hurried fit of summary, that "Communists" were, after all, only "Democrats in a hurry." How tragically wrong he was. It would be foolishness on a similar scale to assume that Muslims are merely ethnic or colorful "Unitarians" whose core beliefs may be blithely disregarded for reasons of ignorance, political correctness or Modernist insensitivity to the power of religious conviction. Failure to properly understand the historically-based meaning of jihad in orthodox Islam would also de-emphasize or derail investigation into the valid avenues of possible change in Islamic doctrine, thus foregoing the real chance of engaging in honest dialogue with the Muslim world to encourage an authentic development of doctrine (when and if feasible) so as to soften or defuse the import of jihad in Western-Islamic relations.[45] To do so, however, would again require an appreciation or sensitivity for religious issues and beliefs, and a long-term commitment or consistency in expressing Western values and interests, which traits have not been demonstrated qualities in recent American foreign policy.

Few chroniclers of recent history have noted that Spanish Christians had a distinctive name for the continuing low-intensity warfare separating the periods of active, full-scale operations which punctuated the eight hundred year Reconquista, or reconquest of the Iberian peninsula. They called their continuing struggle to push back Islam the Guerra Fria—or as we would say it, the "Cold War."[46] Only intelligent respect for religion in general and Islam in particular will afford us the chance to realistically confront and assess the practical role of the historically-derived, anti-Western concept of jihad in Muslim thought and policy and thus avoid potential default in, or exacerbation (through ignorance) of, another ideological "cold war."



1. Charles Krauthammer, "Israel is taken in by Arafat's deadly zero-sum game," THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, May 20, 1994.

2."Arafat's Parable," THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, May 27, 1994.

3. H. U. Rahman, A CHRONOLOGY OF ISLAMIC HISTORY: 570-1000 C.E. (Boston, 1989), p. 15-17.

4. Bernard Lewis, THE ARABS IN HISTORY (9th ed. Oxford, 1993), p. 43.

5. "Muslim jurists conclude that treaties of friendship should not be concluded with non-Muslims in perpetuity. Generally the jurists agree that ten years should be the maximum period." Muhammad Hamidullah, THE MUSLIM CONDUCT OF STATE, 7th rev'd. ed. (Lahore, 1977), p. 266.

6. See e.g., Angelo Codevilla, INFORMING STATECRAFT: INTELLIGENCE FOR A NEW CENTURY (New York, 1992), p. 7; and Adda B. Bozeman, "U.S. Conceptions of Democracy and Security in a World Environment of Culturally Alien Political Thought: Linkages and Contradictions" in U.S. DOMESTIC AND NATIONAL SECURITY AGENDAS: INTO THE 21ST CENTURY, ed. Sam C. Sarkesian and John Mead Flanagin (Westport, CT 1994) p. 54.

7. For a more detailed description of the strategic ideology of jihad, see Patrick L. Moore, "Jihad" and Conflict in the World of Islam, CJ INTERNATIONAL, Office of International Criminal Justice at the University of Illinois at Chicago, (January- February, 1994).


9. E.g., Suzanne Haneef, WHAT EVERYONE SHOULD KNOW ABOUT ISLAM AND MUSLIMS (Lahore, 1985), p. 118-19.

10. Bernard Lewis, THE POLITICAL LANGUAGE OF ISLAM (Chicago, 1988), p. 72.

11. E.g., "the jihad - holy war, or bellum justum as later European jurists would have called it ... ." Philip C. Jessup, Judge, International Court of Justice in his forward to Majid Khadduri, THE ISLAMIC LAW OF NATIONS: SHAYBANI'S SIYAR (Baltimore, 1966), p. ix. "Thus in Islam, as in Western Christendom, the jihad is the bellum justum." Majid Khadduri, id. at 59.

12. William V. O'Brien, LAW AND MORALITY IN ISRAEL'S WAR WITH THE PLO (New York, 1991), pp. 285 and 311.

13. "Islam prohibited war in every form save in the fulfillment of a religious purpose, the jihad." Majid Khadduri, THE ISLAMIC LAW OF NATIONS: SHAYBANI'S SIYAR (Baltimore, 1966), p. 16.

14. Cyril Glasse', The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam (San Francisco, 1991), p. 132; and Ian Richard Netton, A Popular Dictionary of Islam (London, 1992), p. 39.

15. Bernard Lewis, Islam and the West (New York, 1993), pp. 46-47; Majid Khadduri, WAR AND PEACE IN THE LAW OF ISLAM (Baltimore, 1955), p. 64.

16. Ian Richard Netton, A Popular Dictionary of Islam (London, 1992), pp. 126 and 182.

17. Bernard Lewis, Islam and the West (New York, 1993), p. 47.

18. Speaking of the falsely ascribed tenet of "forced conversion" Edward Gibbon said it was a "charge of ignorance and bigotry" but he also noted the well-known Islamic drive for universal political domination in that "it cannot be denied that ... in peace and war, they assert a divine and indefeasible claim of universal empire; and that, in their orthodox creed, the unbelieving nations are continually threatened with the loss of religion or liberty." Edward Gibbon, DECLINE AND FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE, vol. 7, ch. LVIII, J.B. Bury ed. (1912), p. 277.

19. Ignaz Goldziher, Introduction to Islamic Theology and Law, translated by Andras and Ruth Hamori (Princeton, N.J. 1981), p. 27.

20. A popular source for the "defensive"-only theory of jihad is the work of the 13th century jurist/theologian Taqi al-Din ibn Taymiyah (1263-1328). He reportedly "reinterpreted" the doctrine of jihad so as to restrict war against non-believers so that "[r]esort to force is allowed only as a defensive or self-protective measure." Qamaruddin Khan, THE POLITICAL THOUGHT OF IBN TAYMIYAH (Islamabad, Pakistan 1985), p. 157. Reliance on Ibn Taymiyah's opinions as an authoritative revision of Islamic jihad doctrine, however, is highly dubious. He was definitely and directly at odds with the majority Sunni religious authorities, receiving "colossal opposition" from them. Id. at p. Ibn Taymiyah was supposedly convinced of the need to redefine jihad as solely defensive by a realistic assessment of the decline of Islamic power, especially in the wake of the Mongol invasions. But mainstream Islam clearly did not agree with him. "[T]he Muslim jurists were not prepared to be convinced by these facts. They continued to preach the theory of undiluted jihad." Id. at 158. Ibn Taymiyah's attempt to reinterpret jihad was thus a failure. "Unfortunately Ibn Taymiyya's approach was not accepted." Tamara Sonn, Irregular Warfare and Terrorism in Islam: Asking the Right Questions in CROSS, CRESCENT, AND SWORD: THE JUSTIFICATION AND LIMITATION OF WAR IN WESTERN AND ISLAMIC TRADITION, ed. by James Turner Johnson and John Kelsay (Westport, Ct. 1990), p. 135. His signal lack of success bolsters the durability of the historical, orthodox teaching of permanent, unremitting jihad which may descend into low-intensity conflict (or "dormancy") but which may never end until the universal triumph of Islam over unbelief. Then again, Ibn Taymiya's theory of jihad might also be seen, as a practical matter, as more on a par with Stalin's tactical retreat from "world revolution" in his concept of "socialism in one country," i.e. concentrating on internal development and buildup pending remergence of world-contesting power. E.g., "Ibn Taymiya legitimated what has been called 'jihad within the commnity' ... ." Gilles Kepel, MUSLIM EXTREMISM IN EGYPT: THE PROPHET AND PHAROAH (Berkeley, 1993), p. 199. In any event, Ibn Taymiya's ideologically iconoclastic ideas eventually became the intellectual and religious basis for the significantly unorthodox, puritanical and "steadfastly fundamentalist interpretation of Islam" in the Wahabi sect which holds sway in Saudi Arabia. Cyril Glasse', THE CONCISE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF ISLAM (San Francisco, 1991), p. 414. At best, Ibn Taymiyah's view was a distinctly minority, non-mainstream theory of jihad.

21. Ann Elizabeth Mayer, "War and Peace in the Islamic Tradition and International Law" in JUST WAR AND JIHAD: HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES ON WAR AND PEACE IN WESTERN AND ISLAMIC TRADITIONS, ed. by James Turner Johnson and John Kelsay (Westport, Ct., 1991), pp. 203-05.

22. E.g., Opposition to or placing obstacles in the way of the "call" to Islam could give rise to a "defensive" jihad. Ayatullah Murtada Mutahhari, Jihad in the Quran in Jihad and Shahadat: Struggle and Martyrdom in Islam, Essays and Addresses by Ayatullah Mahmud Taleqani, AYATULLAH MURTADA MUTAHHARI AND DR. ALI SHARI'ATI, ed. by Mehdi Abedi and Garry Lagenhausen (Houston, Texas 1986), pp. 109-113. "When a Muslim State is free from internal commotion and strife, and has sufficient power ..., then it is its duty to invite the neighboring non-Muslim sovereigns to accept the unity of God ... in short to embrace Islam. If they do, they will retain their power ... . If the invitation is rejected, the non-Muslim chief [outside Arabia, may, in the alternative] pay yearly jizyah or protection tax ... . If both these alternatives are rejected and all peaceful persuasion and reasoning fail, then it is the duty of the Muslim State to declare war in the name of God until it conquers or receives the jizyah ... ." Muhammad Hamidullah, THE MUSLIM CONDUCT OF STATE, 7th rev'd. ed. (Lahore, 1977), p. 171-172.

23. See generally, Rudolph Peters, Islam and Colonialism: The Doctrine of Jihad in Modern History (The Hague, 1979), especially pp. 151-165. As Peters describes it, the Modernist gloss is "A new interpretation of the jihad-doctrine" which is put forth in writings of a "highly apologetic character" wherein "[t]he classical doctrine of jihad has been stripped of its militancy ... ." Id. at p. 150.

24. E.g., Koran, 3:104, 110, 114; and 9:71.

25. E.g., KJV, Psalms 34:14; Luke 6:35; Romans 13:4 and 1 Peter 3:11.

26. Koran II:191; and see James J. Busuttil, "Slay Them Wherever You Find Them": Humanitarian Law in Islam, Military Law & Law of War Review (1991), p. 112.

27. KJV, Matthew 28:19. While proper provision of armed force is not forbidden by Christ, it is strictly limited (e.g. Luke 22:36-38, where "they said, Lord, behold, here [are] two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.").

28. "[R]eforms which Islam wants to bring about cannot be carried out by sermons alone. Political power is also essential to achieve them." Sayyid Abul A'La Maududi, The Islamic Law and Constitution (Lahore, 1990), p. 5. "Similarly [quoting Ibn Taymiya], all the obligations of religion, like jihad, justice, arrangement for hajj and Id and Friday congregations, extending help to the oppressed and the enforcement of the penal provisions of the Quran, cannot be fulfilled without power and authority." Qamaruddin Khan, THE POLITICAL THOUGHT OF IBN TAYMIYAH (Islamabad, Pakistan 1985), p. 3 Also, Bernard Lewis, ISLAM AND THE WEST (New York, 1993), pp. 52-53.

29. "Islamic rule is to be established by all means." Muhammad Hamidullah, The Muslim Conduct of State, 7th rev'd. ed. (Lahore, 1977), p. 170.

30. Bernard Lewis, The Political Language of Islam (Chicago, 1988), p. 73.

31. Bernard Lewis, The Political Language of Islam (Chicago, 1988), p. 73.

32. It should also be noted by way of comparison that the "Crusades"—one of the isolated instances of Western "Holy War" - have long been recognized as being in the nature of a counter-offensive while, without doubt, the successive Islamic waves of conquest were entirely aggressive in character. E.g., Bernard Lewis, Islam: from the Prophet Muhammed to the Capture of Constantinople, Vol. 1: Politics and War, ed. and translated by Bernard Lewis (Oxford, 1977), p. xiv; J. J. Saunders, A HISTORY OF MEDIEVAL ISLAM (London, 1965), ch. X, "The Christian Counter-attack."

33. Majid Khadduri, War and Peace in the Law of Islam (Baltimore, 1955), p. 64.

34. Majid Khadduri, The Islamic Law of Nations: Shaybani's Siyar (Baltimore, 1966), pp. 17 and 15.

35. "The basis of the Islamic attitude towards unbelievers is the law of war; they must be either converted or subjugated or killed (excepting women, children, and slaves); the third alternative, in general, occurs only if the first two are refused." Joseph Schacht, AN INTRODUCTION TO ISLAMIC LAW (Oxford 1964) pp. 130.

36. There is at least "uncertainty" about "the binding force of some treaties, such as ones that would permanently fetter Muslims' ability to conduct a jihad." Ann Elizabeth Mayer, "War and Peace in the Islamic Tradition and International Law" in Just War and Jihad: Historical Perspectives on War and Peace in Western and Islamic Traditions, ed. by James Turner Johnson and John Kelsay (Westport, Ct., 1991), p. 201.

37. Compare the Marxist-Leninist concept of "peaceful coexistence" which ultimately aims at neither peace nor mutuality, but rather is a reduction of tensions until the "correlation of forces" once again favors the Socialist Camp. See e.g., John P. Roche, THE HISTORY AND IMPACT OF MARXIST-LENINIST ORGANIZATIONAL THEORY (Cambridge, Mass., 1984); Roberta Goren, THE SOVIET UNION AND TERRORISM (ed. by Jillian Becker), introduction by Robert Conquest (Boston, 1984); SOVIET PERCEPTIONS OF WAR AND PEACE, ed. by Graham D. Vernon (Washington, D.C. 1981); John Norton Moore and Robert F. Turner, INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE BREZHNEV DOCTRINE (Lanham, Md. 1987); J. A. Emmerson and Hans Bax, The Soviet Concept of "Peace," STRATEGIC REVIEW (Fall, 1983); and Patrick L. Moore, A Dictionary of Soviet Double-Talk and Gulag Glossary Reveals Some Unusual Etymologies, NEW YORK CITY TRIBUNE, June 18 and 19, 1986.

38. "Consequently, one may view a Muslim's entire life as 'a continuous process of warfare, psychological and political, if not strictly military,' [quoting Majid Khadduri] and conclude that Islamic precepts advance a doctrine of permanent war regardless of whether or not believers are actually engaged in military activities. And, in fact, as the power of the Arabized and Islamized states declined, this doctrine became largely dormant, leaving Muslims in a condition roughly comparable to what is known in international law as a "state of insurgency [emphasis added]." Adda B. Bozeman, "War and the Clash of Ideas," in CONFLICT, CULTURE, AND HISTORY: REGIONAL DIMENSIONS (Air University Press, Maxwell Air Force Base, Al., 1993) pp. XLIV-XLV.

39. It is the historical record which must demonstrate what such religious doctrines are. See e.g., Bernard Lewis, Islam and the West (New York, 1993), p. 194, ch. 8, n. 1.

40. See, e.g. Bassam Tibi, Islam and the Cultural Accommodation of Social Change, trans. by Clare Krojzl (Boulder, Co. 1990) and Milton Viorst, Sandcastles: The ARABS IN SEARCH OF THE MODERN WORLD (New York, 1994).

41. Maryam Jameelah, Islam and Modernism (Lahore, 1988), p. 48.

42. D. B. MacDonald, "djihad" in Shorter Encyclopedia of ISLAM, ed. by H. A. R. Gibb and J. H. Kramers (Leiden, 1991), p. 89.

43. "The largest group of Muslims are the Sunnis, often known as 'the orthodox', who recognize the first four Caliphs, attribute no religious or political functions to the descendants of the Prophet's son-in-law `Ali, and adhere to one of the four Sunni Schools of Law." Cyril Glasse', The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam (San Francisco, 1991), p. 382. The Sunnis comprise about ninety percent of all Muslims. Id., at 449. It is the Sunni or orthodox doctrine of jihad which is treated here.

44. "[T]he intellectual and religious background of the world of Islam is very different from that of the West and as such it becomes difficult for the Western and the West- oriented observers to grasp and appreciate the situation. It is, therefore, necessary that the Islamic concept of religion and the Muslim outlook on politics should be clearly understood at the very outset." Sayyid Abul A'La Maududi, THE ISLAMIC LAW AND CONSTITUTION (Lahore, 1990), p. 2.

45. See e.g., Ignaz Goldziher, Introduction to Islamic Theology and Law, translated by Andras and Ruth Hamori (Princeton, N.J. 1981), especially chapters II and III, The Development of Law and The Growth and Development of Dogmatic Theology; Joseph Schacht, AN INTRODUCTION TO ISLAMIC LAW (Oxford 1964), chapters 6 through 15, especially chapter 10, The 'Closing of the Gate of Independent Reasoning' and the Further Development of Doctrine; and articles or entries on such as Fiqh, Hadith, Ijma, Ijtihad, Koran, Qiyas, Sunnah, Usul in, e.g., Cyril Glasse', THE CONCISE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF ISLAM (San Francisco, 1991), SHORTER ENCYCLOPEDIA OF ISLAM, ed. by H. A. R. Gibb and J. H. Kramers (Leiden, 1991), and Ian Richard Netton, A POPULAR DICTIONARY OF ISLAM (London, 1992). A genuine development of doctrine of such magnitude would be a long and difficult process at best and largely conducted, of course, by Muslims themselves within Islam.

46. Adda B. Bozeman, "U.S. Conceptions of Democracy and Security in a World Environment of Culturally Alien Political Thought: Linkages and Contradictions" in U.S. DOMESTIC AND NATIONAL SECURITY AGENDAS: INTO THE 21ST CENTURY, ed. Sam C. Sarkesian and John Mead Flanagin (Westport, Ct. 1994) p. 53.

© 1994 by Patrick L. Moore
June 30, 1994


Electronic Copyright © 2001 EWTN
All Rights Reserved.

Provided Courtesy of:
Eternal Word Television Network
5817 Old Leeds Road
Irondale, AL 35210



Thank you for not provoking my uncontrollable lust

Monday, September 13, 2010

Obama Islam ? ?

• The FIRST thing Obama did as a newly elected Illinois State Senator was to attempt to declare a Muslim holiday. Obama sponsored Bill SR0110 in the 90th General Assembly to declare November 1, 1997 to be Islamic Community Center Day. It did not pass.

• His biological father was a Muslim.

• Because his biological father was a Muslim the Islam world thinks he is a Muslim.

• His stepfather was a Muslim.

• As a child Barry was enrolled in school as a Muslim in Jakarta Indonesia. An Indonesian Madrasa.
• Barack Hussein Obama’s first and middle names are Arabic Muslim names.
Barack was the name for Mohammad’s horse. Husein, enough said.

• Obama recited the opening lines of the Muslim call to prayer, which includes a vow of fidelity to Islam, in flawless Arabic on a radio program. - Nikolos Kristoff, NYTs, 3-06-07 (***this one is a gottcha moment***)

• On that same program he said he thinks the call to prayer is “one of the prettiest sounds on earth.”

• Obama belonged to Rev. Wright’s (a former Muslim) church for twenty years. Many congregants are Muslims.

• Obama’s said that the U.S. is “one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.”

• Obama holds Muslim celebrations in the WH but canceled the National Day of Prayer.

• President Obama’s religious adviser, Eboo Patel, once deemed the United States “the ideal place for the renewal of Islam.”

• Obama does not give gifts on Christmas.

• Obama doesn’t celebrate his birthday.

• Obama falsely attributes Muslim participation in the founding of America.

• Obama required that the cross be covered when he gave a speech at Notre Dame.

• Christian symbol covered up during Obama’s Georgetown speech

• Obama’s first major speech in office was a “Muslim outreach” speech in Cairo Egypt.

• “The American President told me in confidence that he is a Muslim,” said Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit on Nile TV.

• Obama gave strong support to the Cordoba House community center and mosque to be built at the Ground Zero site of Sep. 11, 2001 at a dinner celebrating the day’s end of the first day of Ramadan at the WH.

• Obama tasked NASA with a mission of “Muslim outreach.”

• Obama referred to his faith as “my Muslim faith” gaffe in an interview with George Stephanopolous.

• Pushes Islamic freedom of religion but not Jewish or Christian freedoms. Several weeks ago he told Israel NOT to build settlements in East Jerusalem. But OK to build that Mosque at Ground Zero.

28 posted on Saturday, 28 August 2010 9:44:31 a.m. by cruise_missile

Monday, September 6, 2010

Mesmerized, Loosing Freedom

MikeNZ (2,732) Says:
September 6th, 2010 at 12:04 pm

I don’t think we’ve been spoiled as much have forgotten that freedom is so precious we must fight for it every day and for every inch.
We have become complacent just like an obese person gets fatter by not doing exercise and watching what they eat and doing something about it.

Watched on TV "Fat Doctor" where a man just kept getting fatter 40 stone x(14 lbs)=560 lbs = 254 kgs.
Month by month he had got fatter, first getting his wife to put his socks and shoes on, another bench mark being when his wife had to wipe his ar#*. The bench marks just kept going past, even though he emotionally struggled with it, he relentlessly kept on eating though and still crying at night to his wife that he ate too much.

Craig Curtis is super morbidly obese - he is 40 stone and still gaining weight. In a bad day Craig can get through 25 packets of crisps and two loaves of bread. Craig, from Gravesend is married with three children under four years old. His wife has to do everything for both Craig and the children. Craig feels he is incapable of being a good father or husband to his family - he hasn't left the house in over a year, he is unable to go to the toilet on his own and needs constant care.
revisit Craig Curtis from series 2. He’s lost 22 stone! Life has been transformed, now waiting for plastic surgery to remove huge apron from stomach.

He was like "road kill" mesmerized by the head lights of the on coming juggernaut of death, and still could not stop eating. The only option being surgery.

Are we like this, as step by step we lose our freedoms, then become so moribund that it becomes too late and drastic life and death measures are requiried?
The next "Fat Doctor" episode showed Daniel 30 years old 40 stone, but unfortuantely he did not survive his surgery.

Oriana Fallaci said that if people let go of freedom of speech than there would be no other way to solve differences than the violent way.

Once again, we're not listening to the advise of dear old Churchill!
"If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."

Sunday, September 5, 2010

Justice Profiling?

Posted on September 4, 2010 by KG
Is it time yet??


In Federal District Court on July 20, 2010, the ATF won a conviction from an Austin jury that defies logic and reason. In a trial before Federal Judge Sam Sparks, government lawyers conceded Texas resident Paul Copeland did not know his buyer was an illegal alien, but the jury they should convict him anyway because he “had reasonable cause to believe” he was selling to an illegal alien because the two men and a boy who were present at his table at the time of the sale: 1) were Hispanic, 2) spoke Spanish, and 3) wore cowboy clothing. And the jury did as asked. Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer Freel acted as lead prosecutor in the case.

The firearm transaction at issue occurred on January 16, 2010, at a gunshow at the North Austin Events Center, at 10601 N. Lamar Blvd., in Austin, Texas. Undercover ATF agents followed Mr. Huerta, his son, and another Hispanic male, Hipolito Aviles, around the “Texas Gunshow” that day, and claimed to observe Huerta’s transaction. Austin P.D. used Copeland’s case as the reason to close down the gunshow, leading to a protest by Austin residents in front of APD headquarters on January 25.

Mr. Copeland is a 56 year old Cedar Creek resident and Vietnam veteran who liked to buy, sell, and trade firearms as a hobby. On January 16, however, he had the misfortune to sell a handgun to Leonel Huerta Sr., who spoke both English and Spanish. Huerta Sr. negotiated his purchase from Copeland in English, showing Copeland his Texas Driver’s License. At Copeland’s trial Huerta admitted on the witness stand, that he is in the country illegally, (Huerta Sr. had previously admitted this fact to Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) Special Agent Leo Buentello). ATF Agent Shawn Kang claimed he saw Huerta later hand off the gun to Aviles. Despite these admissions, Huerta Sr. was never arrested, charged, or deported. Instead, his presence at the gunshow was used to entrap an American citizen into an unwitting violation of a federal gun control law. Huerta Sr., who is a resident of the City of Austin, appeared as a witness at the trial, admitted he was in the country illegally before federal prosecutors and a federal judge, yet he was allowed to leave the courtroom under his own power. To date Huerta Sr. has not been prosecuted for his purchase, possession, or disposition of the handgun he bought from Copeland, while Copeland is now a convicted felon.

“Instead of busting the illegal alien for buying, they bust the citizen for selling,” commented Paul Velte, attorney and founder of Peaceable Texans for Firearms Rights, a gun-owners rights advocacy group from Austin. Velte asked, “who was in a better position to know the buyer’s immigration status, the buyer or the seller?” He also said, “What happened to Paul Copeland should enrage all Americans. The Federal Government is using illegal aliens to entrap citizens lawfully exercising their right to sell firearms. The illegal alien walks free, but the citizen gets convicted. The same government charged with controlling immigration is the one using illegal immigrants to attack its own citizens. Does this make any sense? It makes no sense unless the purpose is to discourage attendance at gunshows and frighten citizens from selling their firearms to other citizens.”

Velte pointed out that “There is no way for a citizen to know who is here legally or not. In fact, under Austin’s ‘sanctuary city’ policy, not even the police officer at the door of the gunshow was allowed to ask a person’s immigration status, yet the average Texan inside the show is expected to assume that a person standing before them with a Texas driver’s license is in the country illegally just because they look Mexican and speak Spanish.” Velte noted that the federal government’s lawsuit against Arizona was based on that very type of conduct: Concluding someone could be here illegally based on their looks or their language. Velte said gun owners in his group are outraged, and they want to know:

1.. Why is the illegal alien who purchased the gun, Leonel Huerta Sr., still living in Austin?
2.. Why does he still have a Texas Driver’s license?
3.. Why is ATF using illegal aliens to set up and convict American citizens?
4.. What has he been promised for his cooperation?
5.. Why has he not been prosecuted? He committed three distinct crimes: he purchased a firearm knowing he was an illegal alien, he possessed the firearm, and he transferred the handgun to another illegal alien (Hippolito Aviles, who was convicted and given time served on June 30, 2010).
6.. Why has Huerta Sr. not been deported?

Judge Sparks sentenced Copeland on August 27 to six months confinement and 24 months of probation, and called Copeland “a liar” for not admitting guilt. ATF confiscated Copeland’s entire gun collection and initiated forfeiture proceedings. Copeland was also fired from his job due to the indictment, and he would have lost his home to foreclosure, if not for his family stepping in to pay his mortgage while he serves his sentence.’

Thanks to T. for this.