HAMAS in Palestine

[[FF5]Knix]

In reply to Surak's

 

I never hear an apology from all jews world wide every time Isreal attacks a refugee camp

 

I don't think Israel has to appologize for reacting to Palestinian firing their Kazam rockets into Israeli land, or sending suicide bombers to blow themselves up in Tel Aviv, and other Israeli cities.

 

Please tell me the last time Israel blew up a Passenger plane, or a commuter train in Europe.

 

 

American news agencies have mentioned CERTAIN Imams and Arab leaders asking for peacefull protest. But what is said and what is actually DONE in their own country to stop it are two different things.

Once again, you are not going to see any of your embassies burned to the ground over here no matter what you think about us .

[Caip]

Sonic Goo' date='Feb 8 2006, 08:37 PM' post='31123']

Godwinned! Anyway, Europe was fighting the nazis when the US was still supporting them. (by the way, whilst looking that up I found out that the International Jew was written by Henry Ford! Yowza!)

 

hey, Goo have you ever read a book or did you learn everything you know from some websites?

 

Europe fought against the Nazi regime way too late. England stuck to their appeasement politics until it was too late. Hitler just "took" Austria and Czechoslovakia. He broke the agreements of the contract of Versailles step by step without any intervention of France or England. Why? France, because it's France and England, because they were so afraid of losing their influence over their empire and their status as superpower.

They did not have the balls to stop Hitler until he attacked Poland...

 

Oh, and "the US" certainly did NOT support Hitler at all. You can't say "the US" if you mean certain people. The USA were in a phase of isolationism at that time and started supporting the allies when they started to wage war against Germany...

[Surak]

Europe fought against the Nazi regime way too late. England stuck to their appeasement politics until it was too late. Hitler just "took" Austria and Czechoslovakia. He broke the agreements of the contract of Versailles step by step without any intervention of France or England. Why? France, because it's France and England, because they were so afraid of losing their influence over their empire and their status as superpower.

They did not have the balls to stop Hitler until he attacked Poland...

 

It wasn't to late. The only problem was that the German army was better and used new, unkown and better tactics.

 

The USA were in a phase of isolationism at that time and started supporting the allies when they started to wage war against Germany...

 

No, the usa was sending supplies to England.

 

Knix' date='Feb 8 2006, 09:32 PM' post='31133']

In reply to Surak's

I don't think Israel has to appologize for reacting to Palestinian firing their Kazam rockets into Israeli land, or sending suicide bombers to blow themselves up in Tel Aviv, and other Israeli cities.

 

Please tell me the last time Israel blew up a Passenger plane, or a commuter train in Europe.

 

Yes they have to, or they should stop calling them terrorists and saying they are a civillised country, because only terrorists would kill woman and children, no?

[Caip]

It wasn't to late. The only problem was that the German army was better and used new, unkown and better tactics.

 

It certainly was and what has the german army to do with this?

Hitler broke the contract of Versailles step by step and England and France did nothing, ergo

they screwed up their chances to stop Hitler...and there were many reasons and chances to do so.

 

No, the usa was sending supplies to England.

 

...to support England while England waged war against Germany. Actually the US didn't send it...England picked the supplies up (cash and carry). The lend-lease program replaced the "cash and carry" program in march '41.

 

Go back to school or read a history book or something

[Surak]

It certainly was and what has the german army to do with this?

Hitler broke the contract of Versailles step by step and England and France did nothing, ergo

they screwed up their chances to stop Hitler

 

They allies did stop them didn't they?

 

...and there were many reasons and chances to do so.

 

Name a couple please.

 

Actually the US didn't send it...England picked the supplies up (cash and carry). The lend-lease program replaced the "cash and carry" program in march '41.

 

Did it support England or did it not?

 

Go back to school or read a history book or something

 

Back to school? I haven't done anything else the past 10 years. But really, if your intelligence fails you, go ahead and try to insult me.

[Caip]

They allies did stop them didn't they?

 

Yes, but how...you simply can't deny that the Nazi's were stopped too late.

 

Name a couple please.

 

Violations of the Versailles Treaty (I am not going to name all of them, look them up yourself - hints: Austria, CZ, reintroduction of conscription in '35).

England was just afraid of losing the power over their empire and their status as a superpower, plus they had economic trouble at that time, thus they feared a war against Germany would cost them more than money. That's why they used their "appeasement politics" although Hitler violated the Versailles Treaty and this was a valid reason to take measures against Germany. As metioned there were many violations, thus many opportunities.

 

CAIP: "The USA were in a phase of isolationism at that time and started supporting the allies when they started to wage war against Germany..."

SURAK: "No, the usa was sending supplies to England."

CAIP: "Actually the US didn't send it...England picked the supplies up (cash and carry). The lend-lease program replaced the "cash and carry" program in march '41."

Did it support England or did it not?

 

You denied that the USA was in a phase of isolationism and I said they were until '39 and '41 they actively sent supplies over the altantic ocean. They left their phase of isolationism with thier active participation in WW2 and thorugh their post war actions (accepting its role as a leading power).

 

Back to school? I haven't done anything else the past 10 years. But really, if your intelligence fails you, go ahead and try to insult me.

 

Just proving you wrong, thus it seems like my intelligence doesn't fail me at all

[RXS]

Caip, You can prove him wrong until you are blue in the face...he'll will never admit it. Instead he'll resort to childish arguments and in fact, bring you down to his level where he will beat you with experience. Just smile and nod at the toddler - anything else seems to be a waste of breath and time.

[Spacko]

Caip, You can prove him wrong until you are blue in the face...he'll will never admit it. Instead he'll resort to childish arguments and in fact, bring you down to his level where he will beat you with experience. Just smile and nod at the toddler - anything else seems to be a waste of breath and time.

 

Just wanted to get my "word" in there. Dear god, trying to deny that Europe was toooooo late in finally picking up the guns to counter Hitler-Germany. Nothing could be more obvious, in my book!

[Eliteone]

Norwegian embassy in Damascus has been burned to the ground... Protestors were last seen walking towards the French embassy 9 km away. w00t.

 

KNIX why aren't American newspapers printing those cartoons? I find that surprising.

 

Anyhow I believe that freedom of speech isn't worth anything unless it also counts for saying (or drawing!) the things that others do not like. And all this crap about respect? Bah. Respect for human beings is fine, but demanding everyone's respect for your god is ridiculous. God is on his own.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Jylland...ad_drawings.jpg

 

I did however find the drawings on Wikipedia again. Whew!

 

 

Just wanted to get my "word" in there. Dear god, trying to deny that Europe was toooooo late in finally picking up the guns to counter Hitler-Germany. Nothing could be more obvious, in my book!

 

 

Got to like though how the thread titled HAMAS in Palestine has evolved into this present discussion

[[TNT] Sonic Goo]

Comparing two very similar types of fascism with very similar ideology

In what ways are fascism and Muslim fundamentalism the same? Where, for example, is the corporatism in fundamentalism? The nationalism (fundamentalism is typically transnational)? The single dictatorial leader? The racial components (Persians and Arabs are both considered fundamentalists)? There are plenty of places where authoritarian leaderships are heavily influenced by corporate interests, concentrate power and create hate towards the 'enemies of the state'. Should they all be called fascists? Or should we at least try to see what we're exactly talking about rather than paint the world with broad brushes like 'good' and 'evil'?

[Surak]

Caip, You can prove him wrong until you are blue in the face...he'll will never admit it. Instead he'll resort to childish arguments and in fact, bring you down to his level where he will beat you with experience. Just smile and nod at the toddler - anything else seems to be a waste of breath and time.

 

I'm so sorry, I know you're always right

[RXS]

 

Allow me to speak Gooanese...

 

 

August 02, 2005

Useful idiots then and now

Anthony Browne in The Times:

 

Elements within the British establishment were notoriously sympathetic to Hitler. Today the Islamists enjoy similar support. In the 1930s it was Edward VIII, aristocrats and the Daily Mail; this time it is left-wing activists, The Guardian and sections of the BBC. They may not want a global theocracy, but they are like the West’s apologists for the Soviet Union — useful idiots.

 

Islamic radicals, like Hitler, cultivate support by nurturing grievances against others. Islamists, like Hitler, scapegoat Jews for their problems and want to destroy them. Islamists, like Hitler, decree that the punishment for homosexuality is death. Hitler divided the world into Aryans and subhuman non-Aryans, while Islamists divide the world into Muslims and sub-human infidels. Nazis aimed for their Thousand-Year Reich, while Islamists aim for their eternal Caliphate. The Nazi party used terror to achieve power, and from London to Amsterdam, Bali to New York, Egypt to Turkey, Islamists are trying to do the same.

[...]

The support of Islamic fascism spans Britain’s Left. The wacko Socialist Workers Party joined forces with the Muslim Association of Britain, the democracy-despising, Shariah-law-wanting group, to form the Stop the War Coalition. The former Labour MP George Galloway created the Respect Party with the support of the MAB, and won a seat in Parliament by cultivating Muslim resentment.

 

When I revealed on these pages last year both the fascist views of Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, and the fact that he was being welcomed to Britain by Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, it caused a storm that has still to abate. Mr Livingtone claims that Sheikh al-Qaradawi is a moderate — which he is, in the same way that Mussolini was.

 

While scholars have been using the term "Islamism" for the mix of ideology in the Irânian revolution and the movements inspired by it, a term already exists in Western politics for such a thing, and that term is "fascism." An often nearly meaningless term of abuse (still loved by the recent Left), "fascism" can actually be given a fairly precise meaning. It represents, in the first place, a collectivist and totalitarian ideology. This is largely of Marxist inspiration, with political forms pioneered by Lenin and then copied with admiration by Mussolini and, especially, Hitler. The fascists themselves, like Mussolini (who coined the term), often came from a leftist and socialist political background -- Lenin wrote newspaper articles praising Mussolini in the days before World War I. Their new inspiration, however, was to abandon the international struggle of the workers and to embrace nationalism, especially a strongly racialistic and mystical nationalism. Elements of socialism remained. Private property might be left nominally in private hands, but its owners were expected to serve the Nation, and merely private purposes, let alone use for alien loyalities or ideology, was to be strongly condemned and suppressed. Hitler's Germany witnessed a social leveling unknown in earlier Germany: Where the Imperial Army had required noble blood for its officers, the Nazi Army was as much of a meritocracy as possible given its racial criteria (Mussolini was unable to go as far). Fascism thus assumed the character of a "Revolution from the Right," with a distinctive mixture of conservative and radical elements. Stalinist Russia itself began to take on some of these features, as Stalin found it expedient in wartime to begin appealing to Russian nationalism and even to the Church, with increasing attacks on "rootless cosmopolitans" -- which meant, not good Marxist internationalism, but, most precisely, the Jews.

 

The new threat to the West is a vile and ignorant Islamic religious fascism coming out of the Middle East. It is a threat both to Muslims and infidels.

This violent utopian Islamic fascism is basically a modern, 20th century totalitarian movement, similar to violent utopian communism or to mid-20th century European fascism. It is opposed to democracy, human rights, free speech, freedom of religion and freedom of sexuality. It is at war with everyone who is not an Islamic fundamentalist fascist. It has killed vast numbers of Muslims.

 

Examples of use by proponents

"But the bombers of Manhattan represent fascism with an Islamic face, and there's no point in any euphemism about it. What they abominate about "the West," to put it in a phrase, is not what Western liberals don't like and can't defend about their own system, but what they do like about it and must defend: its emancipated women, its scientific inquiry, its separation of religion from the state." — Christopher Hitchens in Against Rationalisation, The Nation 2001.

"What we have to understand is ... this is not really a war against terrorism, this is not really a war against al Qaeda, this is a war against movements and ideologies that are jihadist, that are Islamofascists, that aim to destroy the Western world." [22] Clifford May, president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

"[islamic terrorist] attacks serve a clear and focused ideology, a set of beliefs and goals that are evil, but not insane. Some call this evil Islamic radicalism; others, militant Jihadism; still others, Islamo-fascism. Whatever it's called, this ideology is very different from the religion of Islam. This form of radicalism exploits Islam to serve a violent, political vision: the establishment, by terrorism and subversion and insurgency, of a totalitarian empire that denies all political and religious freedom."[23] George W Bush, President of the United States speaking before the National Endowment for Democracy, October 6, 2005

[edit]

Examples of use by opponents

"Islamofascism is nothing but an empty propaganda term. And wartime propaganda is usually, if not always, crafted to produce hysteria, the destruction of any sense of proportion. Such words, undefined and unmeasured, are used by people more interested in making us lose our heads than in keeping their own." [24] —Joseph Sobran, paleoconservative Catholic commentator.

"It is hard to see the difference between the bigotry of anti-Semitism as an evil and the bigotry that [Michael] Medved displays toward Islam. It is more offensive than I can say for him to use the word "Islamo-fascist." Islam is a sacred term to 1.3 billion people in the world. It enshrines their highest ideals. To combine it with the word "fascist" in one phrase is a desecration and a form of hate speech. Are there Muslims who are fascists? Sure. But there is no Islamic fascism, since "Islam" has to do with the highest ideals of the religion. In the same way, there have been lots of Christian fascists, but to speak of Christo-Fascism is just offensive." [25] —Juan Cole, professor of modern Middle East and South Asian history at the University of Michigan.

"The idea that there is some kind of autonomous "Islamofascism" that can be crushed, or that the west may defend itself against the terrorists who threaten it by cultivating that eagerness to kill militant Muslims which Hitchens urges upon us, is a dangerous delusion. The symptoms that have led some to apply the label of "Islamofascism" are not reasons to forget root causes. They are reasons for us to examine even more carefully what those root causes actually are." He adds "'Saddam, Arafat and the Saudis hate the Jews and want to see them destroyed' . . . or so says the right-wing writer Andrew Sullivan. And he has a point. Does the western left really grasp the extent of anti-Semitism in the Middle East? But does the right grasp the role of Europeans in creating such hatred?" [26] —Richard Webster, author of A Brief History of Blasphemy: liberalism, censorship and 'The Satanic Verses' writing in the New Statesman.

 

Islamofascism

By Ali Sina

 

Islam is a religion with a very political agenda. The ultimate goal of Islam is to rule the world. But what kind of government an Islamic state would have?

 

It certainly won’t be democratic. Islam is not compatible with democracy. Amir Taheri, an Iranian born author/journalist in a debate on Islam and democracy argued that in fact the word democracy does not exist in any of the languages spoken by Muslims. “To understand a civilization,” Taheri said, “it is important to understand its vocabulary. If it was not on their tongues it is likely that it was not on their minds either.”

 

Democracy implies equality. But equality is unacceptable in Islam. Un-believers cannot be equal to believers and women are not equal to men. Even the non-Muslims are not deemed to be equal. The People of the Book (Jews and Christians) are accepted as second class citizens and allowed to live in an Islamic state provided they pay the protection tax; Jizyah. But the pagans, atheists and idolaters are not regarded as fully humans. According to the Quran, the idolaters are to be killed wherever they are found. (9:5)

 

In the April 9, 2002 issue, The Wall Street Journal published the concept of blood money in Saudi Arabia . If a person has been killed or caused to die by another, the latter has to pay blood money or compensation, as follow.

 

100,000 riyals if the victim is a Muslim man

50,000 riyals if a Muslim woman

50,000 riyals if a Christian man

25,000 riyals if a Christian woman

6,666 riyals if a Hindu man

3,333 riyals if a Hindu woman

 

According to this hierarchy, a Muslim man's life is worth 33 times that of a Hindu woman. This hierarchy is based on the Islamic definition of human rights and is rooted in the Quran and Sharia (Islamic law). How can we talk of democracy when the concept of equality in Islam is inexistent?

 

When an Islamic state was established over parts of northern India, the Ulama (religious scholars) raised a great controversy. By now the interpreters of Islamic law had become divided into four schools - Hanafi, Hanbali, Maliki, and Shafii. The Hanafi school alone was in favor of extending the status of dhimmî to the Hindus. The other three schools were insistent that the only choice the Hindus had was between Islam and death.

 

Amir Khusru, the dearest disciple of Nizamuddin Awliya echoed the same opinion when he wrote in his Khazãin-ul-Futûh also known as the Tãrîkh-i-Alãî: “The whole country by means of the sword of our holy warriors has become like a forest denuded of its thorns by fire. The land has been saturated by the waters of the sword, and the vapours of infidelism [Hinduism] have been dispersed. The strong men of Hind have been trodden under foot, and all are ready to pay tribute. Islam is triumphant, idolatry is subdued. Had not the law (of Hanifa) granted exemption from death by the payment of jiziya, the very name of Hind, root and branch, would have been extinguished.” [sita Ram Goel “The Story Of Islamic Imperialism In India ”]

 

Of course killing the idolaters "wherever ye find them" was not always expedient. What would the Muslim rulers in India gain if they killed all the Hindus? Over whom would they rule? So pragmatism often prevailed and the Muslim rulers would exert some degree of tolerance towards their pagan subjects. Furthermore, it is hard to find a Muslim ruler as ruthless as Muhammad himself. Muslim rulers killed whenever profit dictated and since live subjects were more profitable than dead ones, the extermination was not total as was intended by Muhammad. Nonetheless this tolerance was out of political expediency and not a right of the pagan. Muhammad's butchery of his victims on the other hand, was psychopathological. He would massacre entire populations simply because they rejected him and hurt his feelings.

 

The Christians and the Jews, the so called People of the Book, had some conditional rights. They had to pay Jizyah and buy their protection. Nonetheless they lived in a state of religious apartheid and were subject to humiliating treatments. For example, they were considered najis (impure) and were not allowed to go out on rainy days, lest their impurity may rub to a passing Muslim, make him “impure” and annul his prayer. The Jews and Christians were required to dismount from their donkey or horse if they met a Muslim in their way and they were supposed to greet the Muslim humbly and show submissiveness towards him. The Dhimmis were not allowed to build their houses taller than those of their Muslim neighbors and in some cases they were not allowed to build new churches and synagogues and needed permission to repair the existing ones.

 

Taheri said: “To say that Islam is incompatible with democracy should not be seen as a disparagement of Islam. On the contrary, many Muslims would see it as a compliment because they sincerely believe that their idea of rule by God is superior to that of rule by men which is democracy.”

 

One Islamic site explains: “In Western democracy, the people are sovereign; in Islam sovereignty is vested in Allah and the people are His caliphs or representatives. The laws given by Allah through His Prophet ( Shari ‘ah) are to be regarded as constitutional principles that should not be violated.”

 

Taheri quoted several Muslim thinkers who expressed their disdain and disapproval of democracy.

 

Ayatollah Khomeini called democracy "a form of prostitution" because he who gets the most votes wins the power that belongs only to Allah.

 

Sayyed Qutb, the Egyptian who is credited to be the ideological mentor of Safalists, spent a year in the United States in the 1950s and wrote: " America is a nation that has forgotten God and been forsaken by Him; an arrogant nation that wants to rule itself."

 

Yussuf al-Ayyeri, one of the leading theoreticians of today's Islamist movement, published a book ( available on the Internet) in which he warned that the real danger to Islam did not come from American tanks and helicopter gunships in Iraq but from the idea of democracy and rule by the people.

 

Maudoodi, another of the Islamist theoreticians now fashionable, dreamed of a political system in which human beings would act as automatons in accordance with rules set by God.

 

He said that God has arranged man's biological functions in such a way that their operation is beyond human control. For our non-biological functions, notably our politics, God has set rules that we have to discover and apply once and for all so that our societies can be on auto-pilot so to speak.

 

The late Saudi theologian, Sheikh Muhammad bin Ibrahim al-Jubair, a man I respected though seldom agreed with, sincerely believed that the root cause of all of our contemporary ills was the spread of democracy. “Only one ambition is worthy of Islam,” he liked to say, “the ambition to save the world from the curse of democracy: to teach men that they cannot rule themselves on the basis of manmade laws. Mankind has strayed from the path of God, we must return to that path or face certain annihilation.”

 

So what kind of government Islam is proposing?

 

Democracy means the rule of people. This is unacceptable in Islam. The Quran is empathic that “to Allah belong all Dominion and power” (2.165, 35:10, 35:13, 64:1). The words “No judgment but God’s” (la hukm illa li-llah) is based on several Quranic verses (esp. 6.57; 12.40, 67 etc.) This power is vested on His regent known as Khalifat al-Allah.

 

The Khalifa cannot legislate. He can only interpret the Law given in the Quran and the sunnah and apply it. Naturally, since the Quran is not a clear book, this allows for a wide range of interpretations and this explains why there are so many Islamic schools of thoughts and sects. “But the bottom line is” says Taheri, “that no Islamic government can be democratic in the sense of allowing the common people equal shares in legislation.”

 

Common people are called awwam, and as the saying goes: al-awwam kal anaam! (People are like animals).

 

It is up to the “experts” of the Law to interpret the Sharia and let the awwam know how they should live their lives. This endows the “expert” ruler, all the power and allows him to act as the deputy of God on Earth. There can be no opposition to the ruler. You can’t oppose God by opposing his representative.

 

In democracies people’s beliefs are irrelevant. They can belong to any religion or no religion and still manage to govern themselves in a secular state. This is not the case in monotheistic societies where God is the lawgiver. Christians and Jews have managed to separate the Church from the State. This evolution in Islam is not possible. The concept of Church (with capital C) as understood in Christianity does not exist in Islam. There is no authority like the Vatican or the Church of England in Islam. The Mullahs and Imams are average Muslims who through their knowledge of the Quran and Sharia gain reputation among the ummah and their own peers. You can't separate the Islamic "Church" from politics, because there is no such thing as the Islamic "Church". Every Mullah can interpret the Sharia in his own way. But he can't redefine the explicit teachings of Islam. Presently Muslims do not have a khalifa. But even if they had, the khalifa would not have been able to deviate from the Quran and separate Islam from politics.

 

Islam’s main goal is to give the dominion of this world to its "rightful" owner, Allah. No authority on Earth can change that. Impeding Islam to achieve this goal is denying its raison d'être and it is tantamount to blasphemy. Islam by definition is imperialistic. It must advance, conquer and reclaim the dominion of all Earth or there is no reason for it to exist.

 

Democracies are pluralistic. People have different faiths and are free to criticize, not only each other’s religions but also their own. Islam does not tolerate that. Anyone who dares to criticize Islam faces severe punishment including execution or assassination. Islam is regarded as The Truth, the Only Truth and the Absolute Truth. Defying this truth is the same as defying God and that cannot be tolerated. Challenging the authority of the representative of God is like challenging God himself.

 

On May 27, 1999 Rafsanjani, one of the ruling Mullahs of Iran said: "If the Islamic nature and fundamental pillar of the state and the velayat-e faqih (Shiite version of khalifa) are undermined, nothing would be left around." The same day, Khatami, the so called “reformist” president of the Islamic Republic said in the city of Qom : "Society's parting with religion and the clergy is the beginning of our fall." Khatami in July 5, 1998 said: “velayat-e faqih is the axis and pillar of the state," he reiterated, "velayat-e faqih is the raison d'être of our state. As such, opposing it... is to oppose the fundamentals and pillar of the state….No state would tolerate assaults on its principles and pillars," he said. [ Iran Zamin News Agency]

 

In a commentary, iran-bulletin.org defines the concept of velayat-e faqis which is not distinct from that of khilafat: “In the theory of velayate faqih none of us can tell the difference between good and bad and, indeed, the whole edifice of the clerical rulership has been constructed to cope with our “ignorance”. The supreme clerical leader is our custodian (qayyem), and we are like sheep that if separated from our shepherd would surely be lost. The velayate faqih embodies every rights and the rest of us are only to carry duties. At its most pithy definition, the system of velayate faqih is the expression of this ignorance and absence of rights on our part in contrast with the all knowing, all powerful, clerical ruler."

 

Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, explained the concept of velaya-e faqih, the position that he himself is occupying, with an uncanny frankness when he said: “the leadership means that point where the insoluble problems of government are solved at his hands. His person lights up the truth for the people and exposes the conspiracies of the enemy.” [ibid]

 

In the Islamic state religion is preeminent and God serves as the only legitimate source of legislation. Temporal rulers merely implement the laws of Islam as dictated by God.

 

The following article titled “Essential Features of the Islamic Political System” explains the concept of khilafat as understood by Muslims.

 

“The political system of Islam is based on three principles: Tawhid (unity of Allah), Risalat (Prophethood) and Khilafat (vicegerency).

 

Tawhid means that only Allah is the Creator, Sustainer and Master of the universe and of all that exists in it organic or inorganic. The sovereignty of this kingdom is vested only in Him. He alone has the right to command or forbid. Worship and obedience are due to Him alone, no one and nothing else shares it in any way. Life, in all its forms, our physical organs and faculties, the apparent control which we have over nearly everything in our lives and the things themselves, none of them has been created or acquired by us in our own right. They have been bestowed on us entirely by Allah. Hence, it is not for us to decide the aim and purpose of our existence or to set the limits of our authority; nor is anyone else entitled to make these decisions for us. This right rests only with Allah, who has created us, endowed us with mental and physical faculties, and provided material things for our use.

 

This principle of the unity of Allah totally negates the concept of the legal and political independence of human beings, individually or collectively. No individual, family, class or race can set themselves above Allah. Allah alone is the Ruler and His commandments are the Law.

 

The medium through which we receive the law of Allah is known as Risalat. We have received two things from this source: the Book in which Allah has set out His law, and the authoritative interpretation and exemplification of the Book by the Prophet, blessings and peace be on him through word and deed, in his capacity as the representative of Allah. The Prophet, blessings and peace be on him, has also, in accordance with the intention of the Divine Book, given us a model for the Islamic way of life by himself implementing the law and providing necessary details where required. The combination of these two elements is called the Shari ‘ah.

 

Now consider Khilafat. According to the Arabic lexicon, it means ‘representation’. Man, according to Islam, is the representative of Allah on earth, His vicegerent. That is to say, by virtue of the powers delegated to him by Allah, he is required to exercise his Allah-given authority in this world within the limits prescribed by Allah.

 

A state that is established in accordance with this political theory will in fact be a human caliphate under the sovereignty of Allah and will do Allah’s will by working within the limits prescribed by Him and in accordance with His instructions and injunctions.” http://www.jamaat.org/islam/IslamPol.html]

 

This definition makes clear that the rule of Islamic system of government is not limited to Muslims but to every “organic or inorganic” thing that exists in this universe. This of course includes the non-Muslims. In an Islamic state everyone must live according to the dictates of Islam.

 

What we learned so far is that khilafat or the velayat-e faqih are not dissimilar to fascism.

 

The Columbia Encyclopedia, defines fascism as: “A totalitarian philosophy of government that glorifies the state and nation and assigns to the state control over every aspect of national life.”

 

Characteristics of Fascist Philosophy:

“Fascism, especially in its early stages, is obliged to be antitheoretical and frankly opportunistic in order to appeal to many diverse groups. Nevertheless, a few key concepts are basic to it. First and most important is the glorification of the state and the total subordination of the individual to it. The state is defined as an organic whole into which individuals must be absorbed for their own and the state’s benefit. This “total state” is absolute in its methods and unlimited by law in its control and direction of its citizens.

 

A second ruling concept of fascism is embodied in the theory of social Darwinism. The doctrine of survival of the fittest and the necessity of struggle for life is applied by fascists to the life of a nation-state. Peaceful, complacent nations are seen as doomed to fall before more dynamic ones, making struggle and aggressive militarism a leading characteristic of the fascist state. Imperialism is the logical outcome of this dogma. Another element of fascism is its elitism. Salvation from rule by the mob and the destruction of the existing social order can be effected only by an authoritarian leader who embodies the highest ideals of the nation. This concept of the leader as hero or superman, borrowed in part from the romanticism of Friedrich Nietzsche, Thomas Carlyle, and Richard Wagner, is closely linked with fascism’s rejection of reason and intelligence and its emphasis on vision, creativeness, and the will.”

 

Let us compare that to Islam. Islam is opportunistic par excellence. It is extremely deceptive and despite being a doctrine of war it portrays itself as the religion of peace. It wants to have a universal appeal. It subjugates women and Muhammad was a misogynist of the worst kind but its apologists present him as the champion of women’s rights. The Quran is an asinine book of nonsense, yet its defenders claim that it is a miracle which contains scientific facts. It opposes knowledge and technology, yet it is presented as the religion that encourages learning. Muslims are fond of reminding others that Muhammad said “seek knowledge even if it is China ” But the fact is that any knowledge that is perceived as contradicting the Quran is regarded satanic and is to be destroyed.

 

The Royal Library of Alexandria in Egypt was once the largest in the world. It was founded at the beginning of the 3rd century BC during the reign of Ptolemy II of Egypt . It stored at its peak 400,000 to 700,000 scrolls. In 640 AD Muslims took the city and upon learning of "a great library containing all the knowledge of the world" the conquering general asked Khalifa Omar for instructions. Omar has been quoted as saying of the Library's holdings, "they will either contradict the Quran, in which case they are heresy, or they will agree with it, so they are superfluous." And to be on the safe side he ordered the library to be destroyed and the books burnt.

 

This is how Muslims try to portray a false image of Islam so it can have a broad appeal.

 

However, the most important feature of Islamic polity is the glorification of Islamic state and the total subordination of the individual to it.

 

Just like in fascism, the Islamic state is defined as an organic whole to which individuals must submit. In Islam “freedom” is in submission to Allah and his messenger. The very word Islam, which Muslims deceptively translate as peace, means submission. What is good for Islam and the Islamic state is good for Muslims and what is bad for Islam and the Islamic state is to be spurned and regarded as bad for Muslims too. Islam and the establishment of Islam’s dominion is the greater good and the ultimate goal that every Muslim must strive for.

 

The Islamic site muslim-canada.org writes: “The highest organization in society is the state. Islam has given to the world the practical form and ideals of statehood. Therefore, the question of how religion should inspire, inform and discipline life, is naturally related to the question of how should it be related to the highest organization of society (i.e. the state).”

 

The other ruling of Islam is the concept of Jihad and the necessity to struggle in order to advance the Islamic dominance. The motto that “Islam is a religion of peace” is a preposterous slogan that is part of the strategy of the Islamic “Game of Deception”. Islam does not mean peace, it does not preach peace, it has never been peaceful and it will never be. Islam has advanced through aggressive militarism and regards Jihad and martyrdom as the most meritorious acts. Islam is militant and imperialistic by its very nature.

 

Fascism is elitist. Islam is also elitist. The Khalifa or the velayat-e faqih is the ultimate authority on Earth. He is the one who can read the scriptures and the only one who can understand them properly. His word is the ultimate undisputable decree. However theoretically, just as in communism, anyone can aspire to become Khalifa. The Khalifa in Sunni sect is elected by the populace while the velayate-e faqih in Shiism is nominated by a body of the ruling Mullahs called: “The Assembly of Experts”. Whether this ruler is elected or nominated, just like in other totalitarian regimes, he occupies his seat for life and responds to no human authority.

 

Another similarity of Islam and fascism is the disdain of reason and intelligence in both ideologies. In Islam, the emphasis is on faith and unquestioning obedience to the mandates of God. Reason is rejected as a fallacy. Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali, (1058 - 1111 CE) is arguably the greatest Islamic scholar ever. In his book "Incoherence of the Philosophers" he bitterly denounced Aristotle, Plato, Socrates and other Greek thinkers as non-believers and labeled those who employed their methods and ideas as corrupters of the Islamic faith. He took aim at Avicenna for being a rationalist who drew intellectually upon the Ancient Greeks. By emphasizing on the incompatibility of faith and reason, and by asserting the futility of making faith subordinate to reason, Ghazali gave validity to unreasoned faith and thus glorified stupidity.

 

Watt says: “The early period of Islamic thought is dominated by the conception of the unchangeability of true religion and the special Arab and Islamic conception of the nature of knowledge. Knowledge that is important for the conduct of life – and this is knowledge in the fullest sense – is obtained in the revealed words of God and in the sayings of prophets and other specially gifted men. From this conception of knowledge it follows that the work of the scholar is to transmit accurately the revealed text and other wise sayings”. [The Formative Period of Islamic Thought, p.63]

 

It is important to note that when Muslims talk about knowledge, they are talking about the "revealed" knowledge and not the secular scientific knowledge that has given birth to our civilization. The word science in Arabic is Ilm. The people, who possess this Ilm, are called Ulama. But Ulama does not mean scientists. It means religious scholars. Ilm is religious science. Islam does not encourage the learning of science. Islamic languages don't have even a proper word for it. Islam encourages religious learning. This is what Muhammad meant when he said "seek knowledge". Seeking knowledge in Islam, means memorizing the Quran and the hadith.

 

Inspired by the Quran various Muslim groups have employed sectarian violence to achieve political ends. The first group was Kharijiyya. The Kharijiyya insisted on two things. First, that the Islamic community must be based on the Quran. The second point emphasized the ascendancy of the Islamic state over the individual rights. Motivated by many verses of the Quran (32.13, 76:29-31, 3:39, 3:159, 16:93, 2:6-7, 4:88, etc.), they maintained that God’s will, must supersede men’s will and claimed the community is the bearer of the values that constitutes meaningfulness, in other words men’s life has meaning only if he belongs to Muslim community. This is how fascism defines the position of the individual vis-à-vis the state. These ideas were based on the Quran and were eventually adopted by the rest of the Muslims.

 

 

 

The rationalists such as Mutazilis placed reason above revelation. But their school was vehemently opposed by more fervent Islamists and became extinct. They were attacked by a group called Ashariyya to which al-Ghazali and the celebrated poet Rumi belonged. Rumi mocked the rationalists. In a claptrap verse that left its mark on the psyche of the gullible masses he quipped:

 

 

 

The leg of the rationalists is made of wood

 

A wooden leg is draggy and it's no good.

 

 

 

In the 27,500 verses of Mathnavi wherever he got an opportunity, Rumi pounded at rationalists and logical philosophers. He accused them of being confined by the limits of reason and unable to go "beyond" the rational thought into the realm of faith. Rumi himself did go beyond those limits. As the result he fell hook, line and sinker for the Quran and accepted without hesitation every asinine verse in that book including the claim that God transformed the Jews into apes and swine. 2.65, 5.60, 7.166 Rumi and mystics like him became the spiritual lighthouse of the Islamic world.

 

 

 

The Ashariyya derided rationalism, glorified irrationality and preferred faith over reason. They rejected the rationalists whom, in their view, had forsaken religion and had detracted from God and his revelation. Thus rational objectivism was quashed with mockery and violence, the books of rationalists such as Zakaria Razi were destroyed and they themselves had to hide for their safety. The Ashariyya won because they had the backing of the Quran. The rationalists did not.

 

With Ashariyyah’s unconditional embrace of the authority of revelation, and their glorification of irrationality, rationalism was nipped in the bud and most likely the Renascence that was about to be born 1000 years ago, did not. We will never know the extent of the harm that these celebrated religious zealots caused to human civilization.

 

In an article titled: Is Rumi What We Think He Is? Massoume Price quotes Dr. Shaffiee Kadkani who wrote: “unfortunately the emergence of geniuses such as Rumi and other Urafa (religious mystics) who unconditionally supported Ashariyya did not give freedom of thought a chance”. He concludes, “If it wasn’t because of Ashariyya our history might have evolved differently”. [Creation and History, (Afarinesh va Tarikh, p.50)]

 

Price contends: “It is not a coincidence that in Mathnavi, Rumi attacks all thinkers including atheists, naturalists and philosophers etc…. When Ibn Khadon in his ‘Introduction (Mogadameh) mentioned that Africans are black because of geographical and environmental conditions, it was the Ashariyya who ended such scientific observations by declaring people are black because God created them as such. When Physicians tried to find the connection between the brain and hand’s movements, it was Imam Muhammad Ghazali who mocked scientific inquiry and stated “hands move because God wants them to move” [Alchemy of Happiness, Kimiyaya Saadat]. It was Ashariyya who imposed inquisition culture that still exists today and haunts us even in North America.”

 

Both fascism and Islam are suspicious of the intellectuals and promote open hostility to higher education and academia. Often the academics are censored or even arrested.

 

Islam and fascism abhor free expression in the arts. Hitler denounced modern art as the product of "morbid and perverted minds," and reportedly shouted at one painting: "There are no blue horses!" after which he pledged to rid Germany of "aesthetic atrocities." The terms Degenerate Art and Decadent Art were applied by the Nazis to "all art other than the most commonplace naturalism."

 

Islam also prohibits all arts. Music, dance, painting and sculpture are strictly forbidden in Islam. Even poetry is disdained.

 

The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, (Third Edition. 2002) says: “As a rule, fascist governments are dominated by a dictator, who usually possesses a magnetic personality, wears a showy uniform, and rallies his followers by mass parades; appeals to strident nationalism; and promotes suspicion or hatred of both foreigners and “impure” people within his own nation, such as the Jews in Germany.”

 

In Islam, the Khalifa does not wear a showy uniform. On the contrary, in accordance to Muhammad’s sunnah, he exerts himself to make a public “display of modesty”. Modesty is just a show and a hallmark of Islam. The more modest you dress, the more pious you look. But the Friday prayers and the hajj are the Islamic version of mass parades that are designed to impress the believer, give him a sense of pride and belonging and make him firm in his belief that Islam is strong. This parade to Muhammad was so important that in one hadith he is quoted saying:

 

“I thought that I should order the prayer to be commenced and command a person to lead people in prayer, and I should then go along with some persons having a fagot of fuel with them to the people who have not attended the prayer (in congregation) and would burn their houses with fire. [Muslim4,1370; Bukhari1,11,626]

 

This leads us to another similarity between Islam and fascism, namely, vigilantism. Both ideologies rely heavily on vigilantism. Robert O. Paxton in his book "The Anatomy of Fascism" says that it was not Mussolini, who made Fascism a mass movement in Italy; it was the youthful "squads" who did it. These armed vigilantes in the Po Valley, destroying socialist labor unions and throwing out newly elected socialist mayors founded their own unions and ran local government themselves.

 

Much the same happened in Iran during the Islamic take over of 1979. Muslim youth organized themselves in Komites, took control of the government establishments and started running the country. These youth, armed with knives attacked anyone who did not observe Islamic dress code, stabbed them or throw acid at women not wearing hijab.

 

Vigilantism in Islam is an institution ordained by Muhammad himself. Many Islamic countries have Vice Squads to enforce religious laws on their citizens, often with physical violence.

 

One more similarity between Islam and fascism is in their control of publications and the Mass Media. In Islamic counties, like in fascistic states books, newspapers, radios and televisions are controlled by the state or they must be sympathetic to the Islamic government. Anti governmental media are banned and those who speak against the state are punished, often jailed or executed, charged as traitors, enemies of the state and the corruptors of the minds.

 

Both Islam and fascism promote suspicion and hatred of non-members. People are rallied into a unifying frenzy over the need to eliminate their perceived common enemies. In Islam religious minorities are the scapegoats and their members are attacked by hysteric mob. They are mauled and killed.

 

Muhammad said that the unbelievers are impure (najis) 9:28 and instilled in them the hatred of the Jews, the Christians and the kafirs.

 

In one of my debates with a leader of the Islamic sect of Submitters, I quoted a few verses from the Quran switching the places of “Muslims” and “non-Muslims”. This is what we got:

 

We will cast terror into the hearts of Muslims. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them. 8:12,

Let not the non-Muslims take for friends or helpers the Muslims. 3:28,

Rouse the non-Muslims to the fight against Muslims. 8:65,

Then fight and slay the Muslims wherever ye find them, 9:5,

Fight the Muslims, and God will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame. 9:14,

O ye the non-Muslims take not for protectors your fathers and your brothers if they love Islam.9:23,

O ye the non-Muslims! Truly the Muslims are unclean. 9:28,

O ye non-Muslims! fight the Muslims who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you. 9:123,

Therefore, when ye meet the Muslims, smite at their necks; At length. 47:4,

 

The gentleman with whom I was debating was infuriated. He called me “theo-fascist” and wrote: 'His [Ali Sina’s] subhuman remark was the last, but a venomous drop that filled his cup of hatred and bigotry. He is not a person to reason with, since his mind is filled with toxic hate and his stomach is thirsty for fresh blood….” All this vituperation because I quoted the verses of the Quran switching the places of "Muslims" and "non-Muslims"! Muslims see nothing wrong in the Quran but they do not like reciprocation. Clearly Islam is not in conformity with the Golden Rule.

 

One of the highest Sunni Muslim authorities, Sheikh Fawzi Zafzaf, president of the Interfaith Dialogue Committee of Al-Azhar University in Cairo, said his committee sent the request to the Pope on February 2005, demanding an “official apology on Christian crusades against the Muslim world”, the Morocco Times reported.

 

The demand arose from Pope John Paul II's apologies to the Jewish people and his visits to Syria and Egypt a few years ago, Zafzaf said, “Al-Azhar is only asking for a similar treatment”.

 

Muslims can’t see the beam in their own eyes but can see the speck in the eyes of others. The crusades happened 900 years ago (1095 A.D). What about the Muslims’ crimes happening here and now? Has this Sunni high cleric apologized for the 9/11, for the massacre of Madrid , for the horrendous killing of children in Beslan or for any of the crimes perpetrated by his jihadi brothers? What about the invasion of Europe and the occupation of Spain ? Where is the Muslim apology?

 

The West has nothing to apologize to Muslims. Thomas F. Madden, associate professor and chair of the Department of History at Saint Louis University and the author of "A Concise History of the Crusades says, the Crusades "were in every way a defensive war."

 

"They were the West's belated response to the Muslim conquest of fully two-thirds of the Christian world," he wrote in a National Review column. "While the Arabs were busy in the seventh through the tenth centuries winning an opulent and sophisticated empire, Europe was defending itself against outside invaders and then digging out from the mess they left behind. Only in the eleventh century were Europeans able to take much notice of the East."

 

According to Madden, the event that led to the crusades was the Turkish conquest of most of Christian Asia Minor, the modern Turkey .

 

"The Christian emperor in Constantinople faced with the loss of half of his empire, appealed for help to the rude but energetic Europeans. He got it. More than he wanted, in fact," wrote Madden.

 

WorldNetDaily.com reported:

 

“Over the past several years, pronouncements from Al-Azhar have sparked controversy.

 

In 2003, Al-Azhar's grand sheikh, Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, stated suicide bombers are considered "martyrs" under Islamic law.

 

In December 2002, the Islamic Ruling Committee in Al-Azhar declared the acquisition of nuclear weapons to be a religious obligation for Islamic states.

 

A member of panel, Sheikh Ala A-Shanawi, said, "The Islamic nation has to recognize the enemy, and to prepare itself accordingly."

 

Answering a question he received, A-Shanawi wrote, "Allah's messenger [Muhammad] would have prepared himself with all the resources possible in order to deal with the enemy. Therefore, if the Islamic nation is not equipped with the desired weaponry needed, it will be forced to suffer the consequences, and will be blamed for negligence."

 

The sheikh continued, "All Islamic nations are required to seize nuclear weaponry, giving the nation the utmost respect. We see how far behind our nation is as a result of not being prepared as well as it should be, while the enemy has equipped itself with the best weaponry there is, which it will use to harm and destroy Muslims."

 

Given the history and the attitude of Muslims, demanding Pope to apologize officially for the crusades is preposterous. Even though Muslims do not recognize the Golden Rule and call it a cult, they must be forced to adhere to it. The crusaders exceeded their mandates and brutalities were committed. But this was in response to what the Muslims had done and their savagery. Why not mention the barbarity of Muslims in Iran, Byzantium, Egypt or India? In India alone over 80 million people were massacred by the Muslim marauding army. This is more than those killed during the WWI and WWII combined. Everywhere Muslims went, they committed horrendous acts of barbarity. They looted and raped and slaughtered innocent people. The Arabs were the first victims of Islam. All victims of Islam, once converted, become victimizers, lose their humanity and do the most atrocious things to others.

 

Instead of apologizing for the crusades, we must thank the crusaders for weakening Islam and saving Europe and the world. Had Islam been successful conquering Europe, the enlightenment would not have occurred and human civilization would not have advanced as it did.

 

In fact Enlightenment was about to happen with Avicenna, Zakaria Razi, Khyyam and many other luminaries in Persia a thousand years ago. It was nipped in the bud by zealot Muslims such as Al Ghazali and Rumi who argued reason must submit to revelation. Five hundred years later, the works of Avicenna kicked off the Renaissance in Europe. The science is behind five hundred years thanks to Islam. Imagine where we would be today if the Renaissance was allowed to happen a thousand years ago. Had Islam taken over the Europe, we would be still living in Dark Ages.

 

With the exception of Islam, Satanism and fascism all the religions, and social philosophies uphold the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule is the inner compass with which sane people differentiate right from wrong. Its application is very simple. I don’t like to be killed, so I must not kill. I do not like to be robbed, so I must not rob. I don’t like to be lied to, so I must not lie. I don’t like my wife or daughter be raped, so I must not rape someone else’s wife or daughter, etc. The Golden Rule is an unerring compass. In fact it is so unerring that religions become superfluous. People without religion can follow this Rule and find their way unerringly. Jesus said, "let the one who has not committed any sin cast the first stone". This is all we need to be good people.

 

Because Islam does not follow the Golden Rule, it attracts violent people. One example is Amir Tîmûr-i-lang, also known as Tamerlane, (1336-1405). He was a ruthless man who became emperor through banditry. In an autobiographical Memoir, “The History of My Expedition against Hindustan ”, he wrote:

 

“My principal object in coming to Hindustan ( India ) and in undergoing all this toil and hardship has been to accomplish two things. The first was to war with the infidels, the enemies of Islam; and by this religious warfare to acquire some claim to reward in the life to come. The other was a worldly object; that the army of Islam might gain something by plundering the wealth and valuables of the infidels: plunder in war is as lawful as their mothers’ milk to Muslims who war for their faith, and the consuming of that which is lawful is a means of grace.”

 

The entire history of Islam is based on violence and terror. Those Muslims, who follow the Quran, believe that they are entitled to the wealth and even the women of non-Muslims. They are bereft of conscience because Islam is divorced from the Golden Rule.

 

Counting Islam among other religions is a gross mistake. Islam is akin to Satanism and fascism and not to any religion. It is intellectually dishonest to grant Islam the status of religion. All religions, invariably, are based on the Golden Rule. Islam is not. And there are Muslims who will tell you just that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[{GD}Independent]

 

Yes they have to, or they should stop calling them terrorists and saying they are a civillised country, because only terrorists would kill woman and children, no?

 

 

Are you a complete idiot? Please name one war in which no women or children were killed. Oh, I know what you're going to say now -- that all war is terrorism, right?

 

Every war will include unintended deaths of innocents. Especially wars that included cowardly muslims hiding in their mosques and behind the skirts of their women.

 

Just wanted to get my "word" in there. Dear god, trying to deny that Europe was toooooo late in finally picking up the guns to counter Hitler-Germany. Nothing could be more obvious, in my book!

 

I'm waiting for Surak to post that the Holocaust never happened. I know it's coming!

 

[Spacko]

Rocky! Goo at least has the decency to link to other sites so we don't have to feel as bad for not reading it. Anyhow I read until about halfway in the looong quote and I'm convinced that violent Islam is indeed violent. However I don't think anyone doubts that the extremists are dangerous and would like to see the world as one big, Muslim caliphate.

 

One of the problems here in Norway is that it's incredibly unclear to what extend how many Muslims do or do not sympathize with, agree with or even condone the Islamofascists' actions. Personally I view with great scepticism those who feel a couple of cartoons are more worthy of a protest march than violence and terrorism in their aftermath... But that's just me. Nevertheless this argument that the extremists are a very small minority is obviously bogus, as several governments and states sympathize with and support their actions and goals. And where are the anti-violence rallies in Muslim countries? In my oh so politically correct country the common opinion remains "the vast majority of Muslims are kind and peaceful people", but I am certainly not so convinced.

[Surak]

Independent' date='Feb 9 2006, 07:45 PM' post='31272']

Are you a complete idiot? Please name one war in which no women or children were killed. Oh, I know what you're going to say now -- that all war is terrorism, right?

 

Every war will include unintended deaths of innocents. Especially wars that included cowardly muslims hiding in their mosques and behind the skirts of their women.

I'm waiting for Surak to post that the Holocaust never happened. I know it's coming!

 

The holocaust did happen, and yes in almost every war women and children got killed, but in a war you're supposed to aim at the "soldiers" and not at the woman and children.

 

Futher more, to everyone who compares the Islam to fascism, I suggest you pull your head out of your rear end and get some decent education.

[[FF5]Knix]

If the women and children are strapped......then they can kill you just as easily.

The brave radicals, have taken to using both women and children to do their nasty deeds, so as to throw-off American soldiers.

 

You fight the people who will try and kill you, not one more, not one less.

 

 

[RXS]

Futher more, to everyone who compares the Islam to fascism, I suggest you pull your head out of your rear end and get some decent education.

Almost sounds cute coming from a 14 yr old still receiving his education.

[Surak]

That says something about you, not me.

[Caip]

lol surak, your pathetic attempts to be smart are quite amusing...and depressing at the same time.

[Spacko]

Surak, if you think the Islamofascism term is so hopeless, why don't you tell us why? And give us some solid arguments? There are obvious similarities and although it doesn't mean every single Muslim is only waiting for an opportunity to slit some infidel throat and make Islam the only acceptable truth in the world... What RXS posted has some very valid comparisons leading to the conclusion that Islam is, essentially, pretty damn fascist. Counter arguments?

[Surak]

"What RXS posted has some very valid comparisons leading to the conclusion that Islam is, essentially, pretty damn fascist."

 

By the looks of the article, its pretty damn biased.

There's a difference in the Islam itself, some people are muslim but don't follow the Sharia (islamic law) to the letter. Just like being a christen doesn't say you follow the bible to the letter. But there are countries where the islamic law is used unchanged, like Iran. But something they ignore is that the Koran itself mentions to respect other religions:

 

The Qur'an contains injunctions to respect other religions. It also asks the followers to fight and subdue unbelievers in times of war and "evict them whence they evicted you" (Al-Qur'an 2:191). Some Muslims have respected Jews and Christians as fellow "peoples of the book" (monotheists following Abrahamic religions), while others have reviled them as having abandoned monotheism and corrupted their scriptures. At different times and places, Islamic communities have been both intolerant and tolerant.

 

The classical Islamic solution was a limited tolerance — Jews and Christians were to be allowed to privately practice their faith and follow their own family law. They were called Dhimmis, and they had fewer legal rights and obligations than Muslims.

 

The classic Islamic state was often more tolerant than many other states of the time, which insisted on complete conformity to a state religion. The record of contemporary Muslim-majority states is mixed. Some are generally regarded as tolerant, while others have been accused of intolerance and human rights violations.

 

Also, in time the koran was written there didn't even exist fascism.

[RXS]

Also, in time the koran was written there didn't even exist fascism.

 

 

So what's your point?

[Seemann]

.

Edited August 15, 2014 by Seemann

[[TNT] Sonic Goo]

They did the very same thing (I think even with the very same name) in the early 90s. Then that little enclave grew to envelop all of Afghanistan. I think they're just trying to make history repeat itself.

[[FF5]Knix]

http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?moh12345

 

A couple of more signatures then E1's petition. Read some of them. WoW.