[Freethinker]

Is Islamic Fascism a Slur?

By: Amil Imani


Last August, President George W. Bush used the term “Islamic Fascism” in a speech. In no time at all, the Bush-bashers, Islamic propaganda organizations and the rabid left unleashed a campaign of assault on the President for insulting the Muslims and sullying the sanctified religion of Islam by linking its name with fascism.

Opportunistic Democrats were just too happy to lead the attack on the President. An aspirant for presidency, to the left of the left Democratic Senator from Wisconsin Russ Feingold was so indignant by this “horrific” slander of the President smearing the stainless name of Islam that he found it his solemn duty to write a letter to the President lecturing him on his unacceptable use of the terms.

Did the President indeed slander Islam, or people like Feingold are Bush-bashers who for their own reasons would never miss an opportunity to berate President Bush as well as those who support him? Let the facts decides.

“Fascism is a radical political ideology that combines elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, nationalism, militarism, anti-anarchism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism.” -- Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia

Let us examine each characteristic of fascism, one at a time, and see if the President was justified or did he indeed misspeak.

Radical: Islam is so radical that even the term “radical” does not adequately depict its true character. The founder of Islam, Muhammad, behaved in extreme ways whenever he could. Early on, in Mecca, among his tribe of Quraysh, he was ridiculed as a Crazed Poet. Ordinary residents of Mecca scorned him in their habitual way of treating the mentally deranged. What did Muhammad do? He personified meekness itself. He put up with extreme indignities, did not fight back and suffered abuses.

Time was on Muhammad’s side. Before long, he attracted followers, some of whom such as Omar, Osman and Abu Bakr, were men of power and influence. Then the pendulum swung. The long-suffering meek became the tyrannical avenger. He ordered all the idols in the idolatry of Mecca destroyed, including the one called Allah. Yet, he selected the same name for a non-corporeal deity who commissioned him as his messenger. Then Allah’s messenger Muhammad set out to systematically exterminate people he perceived as his tormentors and enemies—Jews of Medina, among others.

As for teachings of Islam, “radical” is the most fitting term. The Quran is full of black and white, right and wrong, acceptable and unacceptable. Men who didn’t convert to Islam were labeled infidels and slaughtered; their women and children were taken along with all their belongings as booty. It was either Islam’s-way or the high way. This radicalism is very much in action today.

Political Ideology: Islam is and has always been political, in the form of Imamate, Caliphate or by proxy where Islam through religious divines controlled the state. Saudi Arabia, for instance, does not even have a constitution. The Quran is the constitution. The country has a king. Yet, the king is the supreme enforcer of the laws dictated by Islam.

In another Islamic country, Iran, where the mullahs rule, the constitution is squarely based on the Quran. Many laws are strictly drawn from the Shariah. The mosque is the state and no other competing political ideology is permitted.

Authoritarianism: Islam is theocracy, the rule of the clerics. The authoritarianism runs from the top to the bottom in a strict hierarchy with Allah at the top, to his Prophet, to the Caliphs or the Imams, to the lesser men of cloth along the chain of command. No one is allowed to contest or dispute the word and actions of the authorities. Islam and democracy, therefore, are inherently irreconcilable. In some Islamic circles Muslims speak of Islamic Democracy—an oxymoron.

Nationalism: To Islam there is only one world-wide nation, the Islamic Ummeh. To Islam the earth is Allah’s, political boundaries are arbitrary and there is only one legitimate nation—the nation of Islam. The idea of one world, one nation, is not new with Islam. A number of secular rules, rulers and movements had aimed for the same objective. Alexander the Great, for instance, strived toward this goal, so did Communism, and the World Federalists still hold the vision of world unification.

Militarism: Jihadists are the army of Allah. The use of violence as instrument of policy has been and continues to be central to Islam. Muslims war under the firmly-believed and widely-cherished set of ideas that are rabidly militaristic. “No matter which side is killed, Islam is the victor,” “You kill them, you go to paradise, you get killed, you go to paradise,” are two examples of exhortation to jihadism and war.

Anti-anarchism: Islam does not even tolerate the basic rudiments of liberty. Anarchism can be considered as liberty gone amuck. So, Islam is anti-anarchist as a matter of course. Furthermore, the very name of Islam means “submission.” And anarchism is 180 degrees from submission—Islam is the rule of the absolute—anarchism is the rule of no rules.

Anti-communism: Islam is based on the belief in a supreme being, Allah. This fundamental precept makes it incompatible with any materialistic philosophy, including communism. Islam, furthermore, places great importance on the rewards and punishment of the next life and denigrates the value of material existence—ideals disharmonious with the main tenets of materialistic Communism.

Anti-liberalism: Islam contends that it has the perfect divine prescription of life, brought to mankind as its eternal charter. Hence, human interventions and inventions are not only unacceptable; they are detrimental to the implementation of the perfect edicts. Liberal ideas trigger change. To Islam, any change from the perfect design of Allah, necessarily is in error and must not be allowed.

Islam fully meets each of the eight distinctive features of fascism. “If the shoe fits, wear it,” as the saying goes. Islam is fascist. Muslims and their apologists are guilty of denial and dishonesty. They have no ground at all for objecting to the contention that Islam is fascism. President George W. Bush did not misspeak.

If Muslims find fascism repugnant, then they should reconsider being Muslims.


Amil Imani is an Iranian-born American citizen and pro-democracy activist residing in the United States of America. Imani is a columnist, literary translator, novelist and an essayist who has been writing and speaking out for the struggling people of his native land, Iran. He maintains a website at Amil Imani - Home

[Spliffdaddy]

Did we offend all Germans when we used the term 'Nazi' 60 years ago?

I'd say if you're offended by the term "Islamic Fascism", it's because it hits you close to home.

[RAILhead]

No.

[ghporter]

Not at all. People who practice faschistic ideals under the guise of Islam should have EVERYONE coming down on them, not just a few of us. ALL fascism is bad, no matter how noble or devout the intentions of those who practice it. It cannot be made otherwise.

I also think that every Muslim who gets all up and riotous because someone has said something not quite happy about Islam needs to get over himself-or at least over listening to the jerk that told him to be mad in the first place.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by Freethinker

Is Islamic Fascism a Slur?

Only coming from other fascists.

[Freethinker]

Originally Posted by Face Ache

Only coming from other fascists.

We, the non-Muslims—the infidels, heathens, unbelievers, apostates, enemies of Allah, najis (soiled), as you prefer to call us—would like to know what is it that you don’t understand and what it is that makes you behave so badly toward us? You blame us for your problems and believe if we embrace Islam and help establish the Islamic Ummeh the earth would be cleansed of us, transformed to paradise, and all your problems disappear.

Respectfully, we disagree. We believe that you and your system of belief are at the core of your problems; that you need to critically examine the facts rather than conveniently blame others for your ills. Keep in mind that beliefs and ideas make people human, that beliefs are roadmaps of life. To the extent that the roadmap is rational and enlightened, the path of life is illumined, pitfalls are avoided and obstacles are removed. The terrain of life has greatly changed since the roadmap of Islam was given to the wondering primitives of the Arabian Peninsula.

Amil Imani - Dear Muslims: What is It that You Don�t Understand?

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Did we offend all Germans when we used the term 'Nazi' 60 years ago?

That's a term they used themselves. Smartypants.

V

[Dr Reducto]

Islamic Facism: An Inconvenient Truth™

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Freethinker

Is Islamic Fascism a Slur?

I don't think it's a slur, but the article you posted to support the question, is full of slurs, misconceptions and downright antiislamic propaganda, that it's not cute anymore.

Basically what the article dishonestly says is that Islam=Fascism or even worse.

Taliesin

[Freethinker]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

I don't think it's a slur, but the article you posted to support the question, is full of slurs, misconceptions and downright antiislamic propaganda, that it's not cute anymore.

Basically what the article dishonestly says is that Islam=Fascism or even worse.

Taliesin

Islam: The greatest threat to modern civilization and humanity


Nearly 1400 years ago, a group of nomads from across the scorching Arabian Desert conquered Iran (Persia), the greatest empire known to the history of man. With that, they almost destroyed one of the most benevolent and beautiful religions of all humanity, Zoroastrianism, often called the mother of all revealed religions. Due to its antiquity and subsequent influences on later Judaic beliefs, Judaism as we know it has endearingly been dubbed by some scholars as "Moses through Zoroastrian eyes." It is no coincidence that the Old Testament was put into written form during the height of Persian predominance, when Zoroastrian ideas, such as the triumph of Good over Evil, and concepts related to an after-life, such as Heaven, Hell, Resurrection, and Paradise (itself a Persian word) found their way into ancient Judaism, especially in the post-exilic period.

Dr. W.Y. Evans-Wentz, an Oxford professor who was one of the world's leading authorities on Eastern mysticism and religion, was quoted in the book, "In Search of the Birth of Jesus: The Real Journey of the Magi", by Paul William Roberts, as saying: "Without Zarathushtra there would be no Christ". He was essentially making a strong statement about the immense stature and profound influence of Zoroastrianism at the time, since the religion of Zoroaster had been in existence for at least 2000 years before the birth of Christ.

Ironically, though, the acknowledgment of the birth of Jesus by the Three Magi or the "Wise Men of the East", who were Zoroastrian priests, has been celebrated in the setting of the Nativity scene during Christmas celebrations by believers all around the globe, yet little or no attention is given to the fact that the three men bearing gifts for the infant in the manger made their journey from Iran (or ancient Persia) and were in fact Zoroastrians who welcomed the birth of a new religion.

Although enumerating the influences of Zoroastrianism and Iranian Civilization on the world cultures is not the primary objective of this author and is out of the scope of the present article, it is important to demonstrate the salient point of how Islam has been on a collision course with great civilizations from its inception. Just as it brutally conquered and bitterly stifled one of the fountainheads of progress in ancient Iran, Islam still remains a very real threat to Western Civilization and to any progressive civil society in the 21st century. It is virulently capable of great destruction and retardation of minds, as we have seen in the past two decades, and the clear and present danger should be taken very seriously by any open-minded citizen of this planet who cares about freedom, human rights and progress.

Amil Imani - Islam: The greatest threat to modern civilization

[Dakar]

What, no screams of Rule 8?

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Dakar

What, no screams of Rule 8?

Perhaps reports to the moderators are even better than the constant reminders.. but hey.

This thread is a rule 8 violation and should be locked. /rule8 rant

V

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Freethinker

Islam: The greatest threat to modern civilization and humanity


Nearly 1400 years ago, a group of nomads from across the scorching Arabian Desert conquered Iran (Persia), the greatest empire known to the history of man. With that, they almost destroyed one of the most benevolent and beautiful religions of all humanity, Zoroastrianism, often called the mother of all revealed religions. Due to its antiquity and subsequent influences on later Judaic beliefs, Judaism as we know it has endearingly been dubbed by some scholars as "Moses through Zoroastrian eyes." It is no coincidence that the Old Testament was put into written form during the height of Persian predominance, when Zoroastrian ideas, such as the triumph of Good over Evil, and concepts related to an after-life, such as Heaven, Hell, Resurrection, and Paradise (itself a Persian word) found their way into ancient Judaism, especially in the post-exilic period.

Dr. W.Y. Evans-Wentz, an Oxford professor who was one of the world's leading authorities on Eastern mysticism and religion, was quoted in the book, "In Search of the Birth of Jesus: The Real Journey of the Magi", by Paul William Roberts, as saying: "Without Zarathushtra there would be no Christ". He was essentially making a strong statement about the immense stature and profound influence of Zoroastrianism at the time, since the religion of Zoroaster had been in existence for at least 2000 years before the birth of Christ.

Ironically, though, the acknowledgment of the birth of Jesus by the Three Magi or the "Wise Men of the East", who were Zoroastrian priests, has been celebrated in the setting of the Nativity scene during Christmas celebrations by believers all around the globe, yet little or no attention is given to the fact that the three men bearing gifts for the infant in the manger made their journey from Iran (or ancient Persia) and were in fact Zoroastrians who welcomed the birth of a new religion.

Although enumerating the influences of Zoroastrianism and Iranian Civilization on the world cultures is not the primary objective of this author and is out of the scope of the present article, it is important to demonstrate the salient point of how Islam has been on a collision course with great civilizations from its inception. Just as it brutally conquered and bitterly stifled one of the fountainheads of progress in ancient Iran, Islam still remains a very real threat to Western Civilization and to any progressive civil society in the 21st century. It is virulently capable of great destruction and retardation of minds, as we have seen in the past two decades, and the clear and present danger should be taken very seriously by any open-minded citizen of this planet who cares about freedom, human rights and progress.

Amil Imani - Islam: The greatest threat to modern civilization

Imani is an iranian atheist who is embittered to see Iran becoming a radical theocratic state. That is understandable, and in his bitterness he is fond and longing for the lost past of ancient Persia, and projecting the problems and differences he has with today's Iran to Islam in general, which is quite rediculously.

What he doesn't mention is that before islamic empires conquered the persian empire it was already crumbling and breaking down, due to the long conflicts with the roman and byzantine empires.

The islamic conquering brought new life to the persian culture, while the islamic culture assimilated the best of the persian culture, it was a symbiose both profiteed from.

While I understand why Imani is feeling like he does, I think he is putting his feelings into the wrong angle and wrong form. With that attitude he won't be able to change anything for the better in Iran, instead he is playing into the hands of the clerics with his way out antiislamic propaganda.

Taliesin

[Freethinker]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Imani is an iranian atheist who is embittered to see Iran becoming a radical theocratic state. That is understandable, and in his bitterness he is fond and longing for the lost past of ancient Persia, and projecting the problems and differences he has with today's Iran to Islam in general, which is quite rediculously.

What he doesn't mention is that before islamic empires conquered the persian empire it was already crumbling and breaking down, due to the long conflicts with the roman and byzantine empires.

The islamic conquering brought new life to the persian culture, while the islamic culture assimilated the best of the persian culture, it was a symbiose both profiteed from.

While I understand why Imani is feeling like he does, I think he is putting his feelings into the wrong angle and wrong form. With that attitude he won't be able to change anything for the better in Iran, instead he is playing into the hands of the clerics with his way out antiislamic propaganda.

Taliesin

Why We Critique Only Islam!

By Syed Kamran Mirza



Frequently we are facing one common accusation from the Islamists, semi-Islamists and even from the moderate (ignorant) Muslims—which is "why only critiquing Islam" and why not critiquing also other religions? This is of course a very prudent question. And this question needs to be answered by the group of critics. Critics may think that enough have been discussed about the fallacies of Islam everywhere in the whole world. By now every simple mind should understand very well as to why we only critique Islam! But I am not surprised by the question, because we must know that—childhood brainwashing of those moderate Muslims and utter hypocrisies of those erudite Islamists they mostly fail to realize the truth simply due to their sheer blind-faith in Islam.

In this essay, I would like to make a hypothetical comparison between the Islam and all other major religions of the world. I shall try to establish the very unique and special character of the religion Islam by an honest and impartial judgment. I shall attempt to answer this very prudent question by my own style. That is, I will generate the right answers from the mouth of those questioners themselves. Instead of answering this question, let me ask those Islamists, moderate Muslims and others the following questions:

1-America has a super plural society having many religions (Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Jews, Buddha’s etc). Every day, every hour or every minute—we are sick and tired of hearing in the radio, TV, or newspapers some very common (colorful) adjectives, such as: Muslim militants, Muslim terrorists, Islamic terrorists, Islamic radicals, and Islamic militants, Islamic fanatics, Al-Qeada, and Taliban. My question is that, why do not we hear about terrorists or radicals of any other religions? Why do not we hear these kind of ear-soothing colorful adjectives about those millions of atheists, agnostics or even Homosexual guys? Why it is always attached with the peaceful (?) ISLAM?


2-In the North America and throughout the western world—there are hundreds of societies bearing the name of only one religion and that is ISLAM. Examples: AMC, AMA, NABIC, ICNA, ISNA, CAIR etc. etc. There are hundreds of Ummatic organizations/societies throughout the North America and elsewhere in the whole world. Ummatic organizations mostly preach segregation/isolation of Muslims from other peoples in general in the host countries. They teach Muslims that they are superior and their religion is superior and ask to guard their children from mixing with the western "rotten" society. As a result, future generations of Muslims can not blend with the society of host country resulting isolationists and problematic youngsters in an alien society. Ultimate result is the scenario of item# 13 below. In this, I have many questions: How many Ummatic organizations for Hindu, Christian or Jews can we find? Why no such organization is needed by any other religions? Why only the people of Muslim origin need such Ummatic organization? What is the purpose of such organization?


3-Can we find Jihadi organization in any other religions such: Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Hizbullah, Horkut-ul- Jihad, Horkut-ul-mujahedin, Jaise Muhamad, Jihad-e-Muhammad, Tahrik-e-Nifaj-shariaat-e-Muhammad, Al-Hikhma, Al-badr-Mujaheddin, Jamah-e-Islamia, Hijb-e-Islamia, etc. etc.??? We can find several dozens of Jihadi Islamic terrorist organizations exists in every Muslim country throughout the world. Can we find such organization in other religions? If not, then why?


4-We can find dozens of countries ruled by Islamic Shariaat (Huhud laws) where Quran is the only viable constitution. Remaining Muslim majority countries also have family laws enforced as per Quranic laws. We can still find many Islamic Republics exist in this modern world of 21st century. My questions here are: Can we find any country ruled by Bible, Old Testament or Ghita today? Can we find just one Republic for Christian, Jewish, Hindus or Buddhas? If the answer is no, then please tell us why no?


5-Islam has become a fearful religion in the whole world today. Islamic terrorists are conspiring to kill innocent civilians, especially western civilians everywhere in the whole world. Whole civilized world is in a panic situation for fear of Islamic terrorism. Very recently, German police have arrested an al-Qaeda sympathizer and his fiancé on suspicion of planning to bomb the U.S. Army’s European headquarters and other targets in Heidelberg, Germany. Interestingly these arrested al-Qaeda sympathizers were none but Muslims who kept pictures of Osama bin Laden in their apartment. My questions are: why could not these two human beings belonging Hindu, Jew or Christian? Why can’t we incriminate any other religion for the similar cause?


6-Honor killing is the most inhuman and most disgraceful act by any human standard. This act is condemned by any sane human being today. But surprisingly—this horrendous episode is only present in the Muslim countries and Muslim societies. Islamists will argue that there is nothing in the Quran which suggests honor killing! Well, question here is, if Islam has nothing to do with it, then why it is only practiced by Muslims? NO OTHER SOCIETIES EXCEPT ISLAM PRACTICE IT, PERIOD. Even in the same country—example Nigeria, Northern Nigerian (Muslims) do practice this heinous act, but Southern Nigeria (Christians) do not practice this at all. It may present in any country in the whole world—but 100% sure that it will happened only in a Muslim family. My questions here are—please tell me why Muslims only perform this heinous act? Why this act is totally absent in any other religions?


7-Today in the whole world Muslims are apologetic to the entire humankind for the shameful terrorisms and constantly trying to erase this stigma by various apologetic fruitless arguments and excuses. They are trying very hard to disown Osam Bin Laden and other Islamic terrorists by saying "Islam has been hijacked" etc. Very recently, ISNA (Islamic Society of North America) held four days full-fledged program in the Washington, D.C. to disown the burden of doubt in Islam by using same-old apologetic slogans—"Islam is a religion of peace" or Prophet Muhammad is the God’s mercy to earth" etc. These Islamists of North America also tried to fool the westerners (may be they fooled themselves) by quoting a few good/kind Quranic verses. They all simply blamed Western Media for projecting Islam as the religion of terrorism. With much hypocrisy they absolutely hide all those hundreds of hateful/dreadful Quranic verses. My question here is—why any other religionists do not need to do all these hypocrisies like Islamists are doing today?


8-"Jihad" is the most fearful and despised word spoken/uttering throughout the whole world today. This famous word "Jihad" belongs to one religion, and that is—"Islam". My question is—why Jihad belongs to only Islam?


9-Suicide-bombing only to kill innocent human beings is committed by Muslims only. In Palestine-Israeli conflict hundreds of incidents of such heinous suicide attempts have occurred so far. It was quite obvious that all these suicide bombers were brainwashed by the fiery inspirational teachings by Islamic clergy citing various Quranic dictums and hadiths. Among the Palestine citizens there are good percentage of Christian minority who support Palestinian cause and they are also enemy of Israel. Surprisingly, not a single "suicide bomber" could be found who was a Christian. My questions here are—why there was no suicide bomber evolved out of those Christian-born Palestinians? Why it is the only Muslims committing this horrendous act of suicide bombing?


10-Mosque-Islamic center connections: all most every terrorist arrested or identified so far, they obviously (without fail) belonged to some Mosque or Islamic center. It was quite apparent that the terrorists arrested or dead was later identified as the member/visitor of certain famous Mosque or Islamic center. In most cases—Muslims attacked their rivals after the Friday prayers, because the fiery sermons of the Imam of the Mosque energize these fanatics. My questions here are—if Islam and Mosque has nothing to do with terrorists then why they could not be belonged to some other religious center such as Hindu Temple, Jewish Temple, Buddhist temple or Christian church? Or why they could not be even the members of some atheists/agnostic/homosexual clubs?


11-Pure (Pukka) Muslims: all most all the terrorists (John walker Lind, Zakaria Moussai, Padia etc.) so far arrested or known to the authority are very pure and devoutly good practicing bearded Muslims. Just last week, Swedish authority has arrested one suspected terrorist from onboard an aircraft who attempted to hijack the plane and crash it to the American Embassy in the Western Europe. Later he was identified as the bearded young Tunisian born devout Muslim by the name Kerim shatty who wanted to go to join the Islamic conference in London. My questions are: Why they (terrorists) could not be from some moderate or not so good Muslim group? Why always terrorist have to be one of those most devout pukka Muslims? What possibly is the obvious indication here? Isn’t it true that any true followers (real Muslim who follows Quran and hadiths) of Islam could be a terrorist?


12-Converts: we know conversion to other religion is a common phenomenon throughout the world. Many people convert to Islam, Christianity, Buddhism etc. My questions are why it is only those Muslim converts turn into terrorists or Taliban (American Taliban, Shoe-bomber and dirty bomber suspect—they all are converted Muslims)? Why any other converts (Hindu or Christian) could not be a Taliban or terrorist?


13-Clash of immigrants with the host: very recently, there were riots between the immigrant British citizens and the host Britons. Surprisingly those immigrant British citizens were none other than the Muslim immigrants (mainly Pakistani and Bangladeshi). Britain has the immigrants from various countries and various religions. My question here is why those rioting-immigrants could not be from any other religions?


14-Dress code and food restriction: Do you know Islam has a special dress code for both men and women? Islam is nothing but Arab nationalism in the disguise of religion. Anybody from any foreign land convert to Islam also needs to adopt/change his dress and cultural habits, which is nothing but Arab national dress and Arab culture. A devout Bangladeshi, Chinese or a Burmese convert to Islam will pretend to be a good Muslim by wearing Arab garb or hijab for women, even though his/her own national dress is not at all similar to Arab national dress. Muslims also follow very strict food codes. Unlike other religious groups, Muslims can not eat western most hygienically produced meat products. Muslims need to eat so called un-hygienically produced halal meat. Convert Muslims even need to learn Arabic for daily rituals of Islam. They are not allowed to pray in their own mother tongue. Result is they do not know what they are praying. But unlike Muslim convert, Hindu, Christian or Jewish converts do not need to forsake their own national dress code or languages. My questions here are why the converts of no other religions need to change their own national dress code or food habits? Why Islam is so different?

15-Coercive imposition: Islam is the only religion in which peoples are being forced/coerced to observe Islamic daily rituals. In any Islamic paradise—like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Talibani Afghanistan, or any other Islamic Arab countries—Islamic police (Muttawalli) force general citizens to observe daily rituals very strictly. Anybody who fails to obey is punished by beating severely or even by imprisonment. Even in the moderate Muslim countries like Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia etc. Clergies, general public or the elders will repeatedly remind or even force people to join the daily five time prayers/rituals of Islam. Anybody who do not join or refuse to join will be cursed, looked down or insulted by the seniors.

16-Punishments for the crime: Punishments for the crime (like stealing, adultery, killings etc.) in Islamic paradise (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Sudan and many other Arab nations) according to Allah’s laws (Islamic Shariaat or hudud laws) are cutting/chopping hands, feet and even chopping heads, or stoning death and lashings one hundred and one times. My questions here are: could we find such ancient uncivilized/draconian laws in any other religions today? If the answer is no, then please tell us why?


17-Brotherhood in Islam: Islam is the only religion having brotherhood or Ummatic provision. One muslim is considered brother of another muslim only. A muslim can not be a brother of Hindu, Christian or Jews or infidels. Muslims are forbidden even to pray for any infidels. Therefore, Islam is like a large-scale religious cult which does not recognize any other religion as pure religion. My question here is why no other religious group has such separatist brotherhood system?


18-Islam and poverty: Poverty and Islam goes side by side. Islam means submission to Allah. Therefore, general muslims become like a dependent servant of unseen authority in the sky. Muslims loose their strength and desire of freethinking and innovation. Result is pure poverty. Look everywhere—muslims are the most poor human beings on earth. Go to Africa or Asia—every muslim majority country is a desperately poor country. Please don’t try to cite some Arab oil-rich countries as the denial to my assertion. Because, that happened only due to the discovery of oil by the west—such as America and Britain. Before that, all the Arabs were miserably poor country. Muslims are poor even in a same country or region: In Nigeria—northern (Muslim majority) people are poor, but southern (Christian majority) people are rich and affluent. In Europe—only two most poor countries are Bosnia and Albania. Both of these European countries are populated by convert Muslims of same Caucasian white peoples. But they are poorer than their neighbors. My question here is why it has to be always like that?


19-Muslim World: Do you know we have two worlds in the same planet earth? One is the real world (with every nation except the Islamic nations) and other is the Muslim world (with all the Islamic nations only). Surprisingly, there is no Christian world, no Hindu world or any Jewish world, Buddies world or infidel world. But we have Muslim world. My question here is: why there is no Christian, Hindu, Buddies or Jewish world?


20-Democracy: Democracy was invented to establish people’s rules to govern a nation. Entire mankind know it well that no religious edicts/rules can be compatible with the modern democracy. But do you know—Islamists make their laughable claim that, "Islam is compatible with the democracy"? Islam is 100% incompatible with the democracy; even then Islamists readily claim that—"Islam is compatible with democracy"! My question here is: do we hear about Christian, Hindu or Jewish democracy?


21-September 11, Episode: America and other nations of the entire world will remember Sept.11 as the most terrible day of the human history and everybody will pass the day with much sorrow and somber mood. But do you know there are some Islamic folks (special human species) in Finsbury Park Mosque in north London who will celebrate this horrible day as the "towering day" of Islam??? These Islamic fanatics will hail/applaud the Sept.11 devilish deeds of those al-Qaeda heroes as the best deeds any Muslim can do. They will form the supreme Islamic council of London and will vow to fight for making England an Islamic Paradise. Their future plan will be to convert entire world including infidel America into a perfect Islamic Paradise. My questions are: do we get to see this kind of madness amongst any other religions? If not then why?
Please also consider the following:

Conclusion:

I hope the true answers to the above relevant questions should positively identify the reasons and facts, as to, why we all should vigorously critiques and analyze the religion Islam. I do not believe there is any other religion which can be compared with the Islam today. Islam is positively an unique and most problematic religion in the whole world today.

Scientists are investigating/researching the current and emerging new diseases such as Aids, cancer, west Nile virus disease, diabetes, obesity etc. Scientist do not research on the diseases which are already controlled or subdued such as: Plague, Small pox, Cholera etc. Like wise, we do not need to discuss religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism or Buddhism which are controlled and subdued longtime ago by the forces of secularism and democracy. Problem and maladies with Islam is current and severely acute and dangerous today for the entire civilization. Therefore, it is an open secret why we should discuss/critique only the Islam today. Does it ring the bell to all?

It is also true that fanatical atrocities of any religions are as bad as the fanaticism of Islam. Besides, fanatics of any religions could be equally cruel and demon possessed, and we should critique fanatical acts of any religions. Recent atrocities of Hindu fanatics in Guzrat, India also deserve criticism from us. But the Hindu fanaticism was purely a local politically motivated sporadic incidence inside India only, and unlike Islamic fanaticism, Hindu fanaticism was not a world-wide phenomenon.

Lastly, let me throw an open challenge to all Islamists: if any Islamists can answer my all or some of the above questions, we promise, we will stop discussing/critiquing only Islam. That is if you can give the parallel situations exists today in any other religion also, then we will start discussing that devil also. I hope this deal is quite fair for everybody! Thanks.


http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles...only_islam.htm

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Freethinker

Why We Critique Only Islam!


http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles...only_islam.htm

Is this the way you want to discuss in this forum? Whenever I expose the faulty arguments you copypaste, you copypaste another article from antiislamic-propaganda-sites?

That style won't bring you very far, but I will nonetheless adress for the last time some of the points raised:

1. Why is there seemingly only islamically inspired terrorism discussed in the media and not christian or jewish terrorism?

There is also christian inspired terrorism, like for example in Uganda, Ireland and India, but there is no globally operating christian terrorism like in the style of Al-Qaeeda, that's true.
There is also jewish inspired terrorism, but that is also pretty much locale among the settler-movement and among parts of the jewish army, but no globally operating jewish terrorism. That's true, so why is there only islamically inspired globally operating terrorism in the form of Al-Qaeeda?
The reasons for that are of historic nature and lead back to the hot times of the coldwar. The Carter/Reagan-US-administrations decided to destroy the Soviet-Union-empire, and developed the idea of bringing it to its knees through the "bleeding through thousand cuts"-method, ie. through the terrorism/guerillia-warfare-method. They chose to revitalise the radical islamistic ideology, that came into existence as an antieuropean-colonialism-ideology during the 19th-century and first decades of the 20th-century, and to aim it at the Soviet-Union.
For that purpose the US cooperated with Saudi-Arabia and Pakistan, and developed a very radical form of Islamism centered around martyrdom and warfare, and lured the Soviet-Union into Afghanistan so that the spectacle could begin. Not only did the US write, produce, print and deliver millions of schoolbooks expressing that US-brand of radical Islamism for the schools of Pakistan and Afghanistan, but also asked Saudi-Arabia to call for Jihad against the Soviet-Union, and training and equipping those that followed the Jihad-call from all of the islamic world in guerillia-warfare and terrorism.
One of those mujahideen that followed the call and that received the special training was Osama Bin Ladin. The US taught him how to logistically organize and lead a guerillia-movement, how to finance it (drug-traficcing using the drug-crops of Afghanistan, but also charity-organizations), how to use religious indoctrination to motivate the fighters and how to fight a dirty guerillia/terror-war..
The US-support for radical Islamism was not limited to the goal of defeating the Soviet-Union in Afghanistan through a long protracted demoralising war, but also aimed at keeping communists out of the islamic world, espescially out of the ressource-rich and strategically important middle-east.

2. Why is Islam the only religion with religious organizations?

Well, it's not, every other abrahamitic religion, has its diverse religious organizations that try to guide its followers to the right path.

3. Are honor-killings linked to Islam?

No, according to Islam, even the most orthodox forms of it, adultery and fornication has to be punished legally through courts and requiring 4 independent witnesses who have directly seen the full outside marriage sexual act, ie. penetration, in person.

So those who kill for their honor are clearly in breach of the islamic religion and severly sinning, for which they will be judged by God on judgment day. The question though why are there some islamic societies where honor-killings are not punished in courts in this life, instead of just the next life. The answer is that the honor-killings fall into a legal hole, because to punish a murderer, the family of the murdered has to insist on the capital punishment, but since the honor killing is mostly done by the same family, it's unlikely that the one and the same family will insist on capital punishment for the murderer, who is member of the same family.
In order to circumvent that legal hole, a lot of islamic societies have given courts and judges the possibilites to decide the punishment without asking the family of the deceased, and that's why in a lot of islamic countries honor-killings are pretty much unknown, but then in a lot of other islamic countries that legal circumvention is not available, for example in Pakistan.

But the question is, are islamic societies the only ones where honor killings occur? Of course not, in Brazil, a roman-catholic society, honor-killings are a very known phenomenon, in Sikh-societies in Asia also, even in the United States, honor-killings were prevalent up until a few decades ago, until the law was changed.

Another phenomenon that is similar to the honor-killings, are the killings for passion, ie. the emotional killings that happen after the husband finds his wife in bed with another man in flagranti. These killings happen throughout the world, and in a lot of countries they are hardly punished, since a lot of legal codes, espescially those derived from the Napoleon-code make exceptions for these cases.

4. Is it hypocrisis that muslims claim that the islamistic terrorists are not real muslims, considering some of the quranic verses that seem violent and hateful?

No, it's not hypocrisis. The Quran is a holy book that has to be read from front to cover and to be understood in its all entirety, it is written in poetic language and style and therefore its message cannot be understood by taking some quotes out of context. The historic and textual context has to be established before making an exegesis, and the translation of the arabic language of the Quran has to be done painstakingly through the method of cross-referencing with the rest of the Quran.
What the terrorists and the western islamophobes are doing is to take single verses out of their historical and textual context, to generalise and exaggerate its content, and refraining from cross-referencing with the rest of the Quran.

That is hypocrisis.

5. Jihad is only linked to Islam?

Jihad is actually the best part of the quranic message. To understand the true meaning of Jihad though you have first to free your mind the interpretation the islamistic terrorists have given it, as well as the interpretation of some islamic empires, espescially the ottomanic empire. According to the Quran, the call for jihad, is one that every muslim should follow, and what it means is to do the best one can do to help truth, good, mercy and justice to prevail in one's society.
Jihad is the full of expression of loving the next like yourself, it's the internal fight in the soul against the devil, against egoism, greed and hardheartiness, and it should find its outside expression in helping the poor and needy, in being truthful, in deciding justly and helping others that face injustice, in helping and upholding law and order...
In cases where an enemy-force is starting a war against the own society, jihad takes the form of defending against the warriors, or should a case occur where another society is being oppressed and persecuted, just because they believe in one God, while the tyrant(s) want to enforce them to practice polytheism, and asking for liberation from the tyrant(s), then it can be an act of love to liberate them.

Jihad as it is used today by radical islamists, as well as by the ottomanic empire, ie. in the sense of a holy war, actually stems from the catholic church that developed the concept of the holy war, and that subsequently got emulated by the ottomanic empire.

6. In Britain, immigrants that rioted recently, turned out to be immigrants from islamic countries, why not from other cultures and religions?

Well, that should be a no-brainer: Because after 9/11, the muslims in Britain were espescially targetted and harrassed by lawenforcement, by new discriminating laws and by newly heightened racism (in the form of drastically lower opportunities in the jobmarket for anyone with a muslim-sounding name) and racistic violence against them.

7. Coersion in Islam, religiously justified?

Hell, no, there are only a handful bigger sins than to coerce someone in religion, and it is clearly forbidden in the Quran. Faith is a case of the heart and can only blossom when in freedom and only with free will. Coersion of nonbelievers creates only hypocrites.

8. Islam and poverty, a liasion made in heaven?

Most islamic countries are part of the third-world, so there is a link somewhere, but then most islamic countries have only recently received been founded, gained their independence after ww2, before being colonialised by the europeans and before that by the ottomans.
So there is definitely a lot of time being lost, while others had a jumpstart, but then there was a time when the islamic world was the most rich, both economically, culturally, scientifically..., while the western/christian world were in their dark ages following the collapse of the roman empire...

Another aspect to be mentioned is that while most islamic countries are poor compared with the western world, they are still way better off than subsaharan Africa, where most countries are christian.

Taliesin

[Freethinker]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Is this the way you want to discuss in this forum? Whenever I expose the faulty arguments you copypaste, you copypaste another article from antiislamic-propaganda-sites?

That style won't bring you very far, but I will nonetheless adress for the last time some of the points raised:

1. Why is there seemingly only islamically inspired terrorism discussed in the media and not christian or jewish terrorism?

There is also christian inspired terrorism, like for example in Uganda, Ireland and India, but there is no globally operating christian terrorism like in the style of Al-Qaeeda, that's true.
There is also jewish inspired terrorism, but that is also pretty much locale among the settler-movement and among parts of the jewish army, but no globally operating jewish terrorism. That's true, so why is there only islamically inspired globally operating terrorism in the form of Al-Qaeeda?
The reasons for that are of historic nature and lead back to the hot times of the coldwar. The Carter/Reagan-US-administrations decided to destroy the Soviet-Union-empire, and developed the idea of bringing it to its knees through the "bleeding through thousand cuts"-method, ie. through the terrorism/guerillia-warfare-method. They chose to revitalise the radical islamistic ideology, that came into existence as an antieuropean-colonialism-ideology during the 19th-century and first decades of the 20th-century, and to aim it at the Soviet-Union.
For that purpose the US cooperated with Saudi-Arabia and Pakistan, and developed a very radical form of Islamism centered around martyrdom and warfare, and lured the Soviet-Union into Afghanistan so that the spectacle could begin. Not only did the US write, produce, print and deliver millions of schoolbooks expressing that US-brand of radical Islamism for the schools of Pakistan and Afghanistan, but also asked Saudi-Arabia to call for Jihad against the Soviet-Union, and training and equipping those that followed the Jihad-call from all of the islamic world in guerillia-warfare and terrorism.
One of those mujahideen that followed the call and that received the special training was Osama Bin Ladin. The US taught him how to logistically organize and lead a guerillia-movement, how to finance it (drug-traficcing using the drug-crops of Afghanistan, but also charity-organizations), how to use religious indoctrination to motivate the fighters and how to fight a dirty guerillia/terror-war..
The US-support for radical Islamism was not limited to the goal of defeating the Soviet-Union in Afghanistan through a long protracted demoralising war, but also aimed at keeping communists out of the islamic world, espescially out of the ressource-rich and strategically important middle-east.

2. Why is Islam the only religion with religious organizations?

Well, it's not, every other abrahamitic religion, has its diverse religious organizations that try to guide its followers to the right path.

3. Are honor-killings linked to Islam?

No, according to Islam, even the most orthodox forms of it, adultery and fornication has to be punished legally through courts and requiring 4 independent witnesses who have directly seen the full outside marriage sexual act, ie. penetration, in person.

So those who kill for their honor are clearly in breach of the islamic religion and severly sinning, for which they will be judged by God on judgment day. The question though why are there some islamic societies where honor-killings are not punished in courts in this life, instead of just the next life. The answer is that the honor-killings fall into a legal hole, because to punish a murderer, the family of the murdered has to insist on the capital punishment, but since the honor killing is mostly done by the same family, it's unlikely that the one and the same family will insist on capital punishment for the murderer, who is member of the same family.
In order to circumvent that legal hole, a lot of islamic societies have given courts and judges the possibilites to decide the punishment without asking the family of the deceased, and that's why in a lot of islamic countries honor-killings are pretty much unknown, but then in a lot of other islamic countries that legal circumvention is not available, for example in Pakistan.

But the question is, are islamic societies the only ones where honor killings occur? Of course not, in Brazil, a roman-catholic society, honor-killings are a very known phenomenon, in Sikh-societies in Asia also, even in the United States, honor-killings were prevalent up until a few decades ago, until the law was changed.

Another phenomenon that is similar to the honor-killings, are the killings for passion, ie. the emotional killings that happen after the husband finds his wife in bed with another man in flagranti. These killings happen throughout the world, and in a lot of countries they are hardly punished, since a lot of legal codes, espescially those derived from the Napoleon-code make exceptions for these cases.

4. Is it hypocrisis that muslims claim that the islamistic terrorists are not real muslims, considering some of the quranic verses that seem violent and hateful?

No, it's not hypocrisis. The Quran is a holy book that has to be read from front to cover and to be understood in its all entirety, it is written in poetic language and style and therefore its message cannot be understood by taking some quotes out of context. The historic and textual context has to be established before making an exegesis, and the translation of the arabic language of the Quran has to be done painstakingly through the method of cross-referencing with the rest of the Quran.
What the terrorists and the western islamophobes are doing is to take single verses out of their historical and textual context, to generalise and exaggerate its content, and refraining from cross-referencing with the rest of the Quran.

That is hypocrisis.

5. Jihad is only linked to Islam?

Jihad is actually the best part of the quranic message. To understand the true meaning of Jihad though you have first to free your mind the interpretation the islamistic terrorists have given it, as well as the interpretation of some islamic empires, espescially the ottomanic empire. According to the Quran, the call for jihad, is one that every muslim should follow, and what it means is to do the best one can do to help truth, good, mercy and justice to prevail in one's society.
Jihad is the full of expression of loving the next like yourself, it's the internal fight in the soul against the devil, against egoism, greed and hardheartiness, and it should find its outside expression in helping the poor and needy, in being truthful, in deciding justly and helping others that face injustice, in helping and upholding law and order...
In cases where an enemy-force is starting a war against the own society, jihad takes the form of defending against the warriors, or should a case occur where another society is being oppressed and persecuted, just because they believe in one God, while the tyrant(s) want to enforce them to practice polytheism, and asking for liberation from the tyrant(s), then it can be an act of love to liberate them.

Jihad as it is used today by radical islamists, as well as by the ottomanic empire, ie. in the sense of a holy war, actually stems from the catholic church that developed the concept of the holy war, and that subsequently got emulated by the ottomanic empire.

6. In Britain, immigrants that rioted recently, turned out to be immigrants from islamic countries, why not from other cultures and religions?

Well, that should be a no-brainer: Because after 9/11, the muslims in Britain were espescially targetted and harrassed by lawenforcement, by new discriminating laws and by newly heightened racism (in the form of drastically lower opportunities in the jobmarket for anyone with a muslim-sounding name) and racistic violence against them.

7. Coersion in Islam, religiously justified?

Hell, no, there are only a handful bigger sins than to coerce someone in religion, and it is clearly forbidden in the Quran. Faith is a case of the heart and can only blossom when in freedom and only with free will. Coersion of nonbelievers creates only hypocrites.

8. Islam and poverty, a liasion made in heaven?

Most islamic countries are part of the third-world, so there is a link somewhere, but then most islamic countries have only recently received been founded, gained their independence after ww2, before being colonialised by the europeans and before that by the ottomans.
So there is definitely a lot of time being lost, while others had a jumpstart, but then there was a time when the islamic world was the most rich, both economically, culturally, scientifically..., while the western/christian world were in their dark ages following the collapse of the roman empire...

Another aspect to be mentioned is that while most islamic countries are poor compared with the western world, they are still way better off than subsaharan Africa, where most countries are christian.

Taliesin

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

Ali Sina


Armstrong's "Islam: A Short History"

For a Review of Armstrong's "Islam: A Short History" click here

Faith Freedom International




The following article was sent to Times Magazine but was not published.

This is in response to Ms. Karen Armstrong's essay of October 1, 2001 Vol. 158 No. 15 published in Time Magazine.

TIME.com: The True, Peaceful Face Of Islam -- Oct. 1, 2001 -- Page 1 (Faith

In that essay Ms. Karen Armstrong started by saying "Islam is the fastest-growing religion". The truth however has a different hue. Islam is not the fastest growing religion. The number of people that leave Islam is far more than those converting to it. Those who leave Islam are mostly educated intellectuals born in Islamic families, while those who accept Islam are generally the youngsters and the less educated class of the society who let their emotions take over their rational thinking. It is enough to consider the Iranians who live in Diaspora. Over 50% of them no more call themselves Muslims and are indeed quite adverse to it. If the present regime of Iran is toppled there is no doubt that the same percentage of Iranians will leave Islam officially.

Nevertheless, the number of Muslims is indeed on the rise and that has to do with their unproportionate rate of procreation. Muslims are generally less educated than the rest of humanity and typically less educated people have more children. This is why the number of Muslims is growing faster than people of other religions.

Ms. Armstrong said something that is true. She said: "If the evil carnage we witnessed on Sept. 11 were typical of the faith, and Islam truly inspired and justified such violence, its growth and the increasing presence of Muslims in both Europe and the U.S. would be a terrifying prospect".

The truth is that the evil carnage we witnessed on Sept. 11 were inspired by the teachings of Quran and if Islam is left unchecked to grow through misrepresentation and deceit, and by beguiling the emotionally charged but less intelligent strata of the western society, the prospect is indeed extremely terrifying. Islamic propagandists like Ms. Armstrong have to answer for their biased insemination of lies. Intelligent people will never be interested in Islam, but intelligent people are never a threat to the society. It is the youngsters and the less educated people who usually are attracted towards extremist ideologies like neo-Nazism and Islam and it is them that can be dangerous. At the end of this message there is a list of the verses of Quran. Please read them and see if they are messages of peace or of hate and violence. You be the judge.

Now why despite this much violence in the Quran Islam is not being cast aside by most Muslims? The answer to this question is very simple. Islam does not allow criticism. Any word of criticism will be chastised by a fatwa (religious decree) to kill the apostate. So in such atmosphere of repression and terror truth will never come out. One fears even his own brother. There are many intelligent people among Muslims who know the truth but they dare not speak. Also credit should be given to Western $cientists like Maurice Bucaille and Dr. Keith Moore, who received financial rewards from Saudi King and other wealthy Muslims like Bin Laden's family to lie and make the most ridiculous claim that the nonsense in Quran is scientific. Their claim defies logic but apparently money meant more than integrity for them. We wonder what is the motivation of Ms. Armstrong in lying!

Ms. Armstrong writes: "When the Prophet Muhammad brought the inspired scripture known as the Koran to the Arabs in the early 7th century A.D., a major part of his mission was devoted precisely to bringing an end to the kind of mass slaughter we witnessed in New York City and Washington."

This statement is quite unacceptable from a person who has written a history of Islam. We wonder what are her sources? Does she know that prior to Muhammad's arrival to Medina there was no religions hostility between the Arabs and the Jews and it was the Prophet of Islam who introduced religious hate in that subcontinent for the first time? Does she know that the Prophet ethnically cleansed Arabia from the Jews by massacring some of them and banishing others and enslaving their wives and children? Does she know that ALL the wars that the Prophet fought, except one, were instigated by him, were offensive and not defensive? The only defensive war that he fought was the war of Khandaq (ditch) that was started by the Meccans in response to tens of raids that Muhammad and his men had made at their merchant caravans, killing their men and looting their goods. Does Ms. Armstrong know that the Prophet of Islam had the habit of assassinating his opponents in the middle of the night? Two of his victims were a 120 year old man named Abu Afak and Asma Bint Marwan a mother of 5 small children. These two were guilty of composing satirical poetry ridiculing the messenger of Allah.

Ms. Armstrong has been very unfair in her statement to say that the major part of Muhammad's mission was devoted to bringing an end to the kind of mass slaughter we witnessed in NYC. On the contrary we believe that senseless carnage was inspired directly by Quran and verses such as this:

"Where ye are, death will find you, even if ye are in Towers, built up strong and tall" (Q.4:78)

And by the hundreds of verses that call for the killing the unbelievers, some of which we have included in the annexure bellow.

Ms. Armstrong is right in saying that the "Pre-Islamic Arabia was caught up in a vicious cycle of warfare, in which tribe fought tribe in a pattern of vendetta and counter vendetta". But Muhammad did not end this cycle of warfare. He capitalized on that aggressive spirit, united the feuding factions for a bigger kill to invade Byzantine, Iran, Yemen, Egypt, Palestine, Spain, India and many other countries, massacring millions of innocent people, looting their properties, taking their wives and children as slaves and selling them in the markets of Mecca and Medina. No doubt Muhammad was a bonus for the Arab Imperialism but at what cost to the rest of humanity? We still pay for that. 7000 innocent people in NYC and Washington paid that price on Sep 11. There is much more to come. No one is safe, not even Ms. Armstrong who lives freely in the West and for some petty and unholy reason known to herself, has decided to become the apologist of Islam. We wonder would she say the same absurdities that she is saying today if she is poisoned by a biological bomb released by a devout Muslim in the search of Allah's pleasure and unlimited sex in Paradise?

Ms. Armstrong wrote: "Muhammad himself survived several assassination attempts, and the early Muslim community narrowly escaped extermination by the powerful city of Mecca".

This is utterly a lie. There has never been any assassination attempt against Muhammad. The Meccans did never persecute the Muslims. It was Muhammad who was exhorting his followers to leave Mecca and go to other places. He even threatened them that if they do not emigrate they will be punished in hell.(Q.4: 97) Meccans never persecuted the Muslims. They never expelled them from their town. In fact the relatives of the new converts tried their best to prevent their loved ones from leaving. Muhammad played the old trick of "divide and rule" among the Meccans.

Muhammad himself was never in danger, though he constantly used to taunt the religion of the Arabs. He escaped on his own volition leaving his own family behind having the assurance that they would be safe. They were safe and rejoined him two months later. Then he made his Allah reveal the following verse.

"And call to mind when the unbelievers plotted against thee, that they might detain thee, or slay thee, or expel thee. Yea, they plotted; but God plotted likewise. And God is the best of plotters." (Q.8: 29)

Here Allah, the Khairul makerin (the best of the deceivers), is simply speculating of what the Meccans might have done to his messenger. It seems that the All Knowing Allah is not sure what was the real intention of the Meccans, which proves the alleged plot against Muhammad's life was nothing but the figment of the mind of a paranoid prophet.

Ms. Armstrong wrote, " The Prophet had to fight a deadly war in order to survive, but as soon as he felt his people were probably safe, he devoted his attention to building up a peaceful coalition of tribes and achieved victory by an ingenious and inspiring campaign of nonviolence."

It is disturbing to see someone who claims to be a scholar of religions be so misleading in her statements. Was Muhammad attacked by the Jews that he fought against and exterminated? Did the Christians of Hijaz attack the Muslims that he in his death bed ordered to to expel them from Arabia? Were Muslims attacked by the merchant caravans? Did the Iranians attack Arabia? Did Muslims have to fight in Spain to secure their own survival? Could Ms. Armstrong tell were are those Quranic verses that inspire nonviolence? Ms. Armstrong is in fact twisting the truth. The few verses of nonviolence that are found in Quran date back to the period that Muhammad was in Mecca and still powerless. In that time he had to speak of tolerance. But soon after he reached power, and the number of his followers increased, he started to make wars, loot and impose his religion on others by force.

Yes he reunited diverse Arab tribes. But this is no feat. Changeez Khan also united feuding Mongol tribes and created a mighty army. All dictators managed to reunite people around themselves by instigating the hate of others in them and by appealing to their greed. The greatness of a man is in uniting people thru the power of love not by promising them women and spoils of war to attack alien nations and promising them celestial virgins and "young boys" if they are killed.

Armstrong continues: "When he died in 632, he had almost single -handedly brought peace to war-torn Arabia"

Muhammad never brought peace to Arabia. He simply extended the battlefield. Now the Arabs did not have to fight among themselves for the meager belongings of each other. Actually they did fight bitterly over Khalifat and power. But now that they had a state, they could also dream of the wealth of wealthy empires such as Iran and Byzantine and lust after their beautiful white women.


Faith Freedom International

[Spliffdaddy]

This has to be a record for the most words ever contained in a single thread.

[Ron Goodman]

Whether or not the phrase "Islamic Fascism" is a slur, it's just silly, stringing unrelated words together for a larger emotional punch. You might just as well talk about "Islamic Nazis" or "Islamic Klansmen". If the radical Muslims reestablished the Caliphate it would be a theocracy. While authoritarian, there doesn't seem to be any element of nationalism involved. Also missing is the connection between the government and large businesses that seemed to be a hallmark of German or Italian fascism.

[BushCheney08]

geze. Who bombed the cole? Who bombed those embassies in africa? Who did Sept 11? I respect mulsims for recognizing G-d, but Christians aren't the ones making violence. These Islamic Facists could learn alot from Christians about peace and harmony.

People are just pretending to be offended because they want to defend murder. It's plain as day. If you find yourself trying to defend Islamic Facism, you should think long and hard about what side you are on. There are only two sides: Good (Bush/USA) and Evil (Osama/Saddam/the UN).

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Freethinker

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

Ali Sina

Faith Freedom International

Sorry, but if you want merely to copypaste articles from antiislam-propagandasites, you will have to entertain yourself...

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by BushCheney08

geze. Who bombed the cole? Who bombed those embassies in africa? Who did Sept 11? I respect mulsims for recognizing G-d, but Christians aren't the ones making violence. These Islamic Facists could learn alot from Christians about peace and harmony.

People are just pretending to be offended because they want to defend murder. It's plain as day. If you find yourself trying to defend Islamic Facism, you should think long and hard about what side you are on. There are only two sides: Good (Bush/USA) and Evil (Osama/Saddam/the UN).

Violence, peace, I wish it were that simple. From my point of view it's pretty clear that the US as the representative of modern christianity and Al-Qaeeda as the representative of modern radical Islamism are two sides of the same coin, both need each other, both were partners for a long time, and the one helped the other when another enemy united them. Now the other enemy is gone and they fight with each other, because both know only fighting, they like to fight, they want it and need it like the air they breath and both don't care for the innocents that suffer for their respective fantasies and goals.

I for one am against and condemn both.

But I find your nickname funny, do you really think that another Bush, like for example that guy from Florida, together with Cheney will make the ticket for president/vicepresident in 2008?


I think, that it's likely that Clinton (not that Clinton, but his wife) becomes president, probably with John Mc Cain as vicepresident.

Taliesin

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

This has to be a record for the most words ever contained in a single thread.

You must avoid Mojoab's threads then. He text bombs himself.

[lpkmckenna]

So Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are "Islamic Fascists?" Does that mean history classes should now refer to Franco and Mussolini as "Christian Fascists?"

Why coin unnecessary terminology like "Islamic Fascism" when words like theocracy, extremism, and terrorism are already useful and accurate?

[DBursey]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

So Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are "Islamic Fascists?" Does that mean history classes should now refer to Franco and Mussolini as "Christian Fascists?"

Why coin unnecessary terminology like "Islamic Fascism" when words like theocracy, extremism, and terrorism are already useful and accurate?

Neither Franco nor Mussolini claimed to conflate their cause with that of Christiandom. Islamic radicals do precisely that. Vive la difference!

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by DBursey

Neither Franco nor Mussolini claimed to conflate their cause with that of Christiandom.

Complete nonsense.

[DBursey]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

Complete nonsense.

Thanks! Care to expand at all? Or am I to infer the nature of your judgement?