Extreme Moslem Radical Clerics

[Raju]

This is a very good & enlightening article:

Why don’t Muslims integrate into Western societies?

Islam itself is entirely responsible for the failure of Muslims in Infidel lands to integrate.

And here is why:

1) Islam itself teaches Muslims to be suspicious of, to hate, to refuse to trust, to offer only feigned friendship to, all non-Muslims. There are passages all over the Qur'an and Hadith about this. "Take not the Christians and Jews for friends, for they are friends only with each other." "Smite the Unbelievers wherever you find them." Not much room for nuance there. The stories in the Hadith about the triumph over, and the killing of, and the seizure of women and property from, non-Muslims whom Muhammad believed he and his men were entitled to attack (even if those in question had done nothing to them) further encourages such an attitude.

Then there are all the stories about Muhammad himself. What does it mean to someone to learn that Muhammad watched with satisfaction as 600-800 members of the Banu Qurayza, bound and helpless, were decapitated one by one? Does that encourage peaceful co-existence, or that famous "convivencia" that supposedly was such a heart-warming feature of Islamic Spain -- which for some has become the model of what they apparently see as an inevitably-islamized Europe? If so, they should read a little more deeply into the history of Islamic Spain (hint: do not believe a word from that sentimentalist Maria Rosa Menocal, "Director of the Whitney Center for the Humanities" at Yale University -- ca en dit long about the state of American education).

It may be quite hard to work for Infidel employers, or to get along well with Infidel fellow-workers, if one is constantly offering only ill-concealed -- or at times well-concealed -- hostility. Nor does the Muslim sense of Muslim entitlement make it easy for Muslims to endure, or to endure with good grace, such an arrangement: Islam by right should dominate, Muslims should rule, it is contra naturam, against all that is right and just, for Muslims to have to accommodate themselves to non-Muslim customs and laws and ways of behaving. If they must, they should only do so temporarily -- until Muslims are sufficiently powerful, which can happen long before they are an absolute majority. Just look at all the demands made constantly, so that Infidels begin to behave, even when they need not, as dhimmis: willing to placate, to make excuses for, to bend over backwards for, Muslim outrages in deed or in word or in attitude – outrages that may be obvious to all those who have kept their wits about them.

2) Inshallah-fatalism. The deep belief in the will of Allah, of Allah ta'ala (Allah Knows Best), of references in every greeting, paragraph, sentence,

3) The habit of submission -- of mental submission -- does not encourage skepticism, liveliness, "thinking outside the silly box" and so on. The habit of mental submission encourages -- the habit of mental submission. This can limit entrepreneurial activity, just as the sullen dislike of one's status, of the status of Muslims who do not lord it over non-Muslims but must adjust, can help to explain the difficulty of employing Muslims in a non-Muslim workplace.

4) Why should Infidels wish to employ Muslims? Why should they wish to create an unpleasant work environment for themselves? Fetish-worshippers of diversity may wish to do so: a newspaper, say, that thinks the "best way" to cover Muslims is to hire a Muslim (which is, in fact, probably the worst way, if it amounts to the usual apologetics and misinformation). Sometimes, of course, one is dealing with those who either hide very well, or may in fact not feel -- as "Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only" Muslims -- the hostility toward non-Muslims that Islam inculcates. But even those who never go to a mosque may at times engage in a sudden flaring-up, a sudden note of hysteria, when the subject of Islam is even tangentially raised -- as if it is simply a subject completely off-limits for Infidels. And nowadays, how can one discuss anything in the world's news without discussing Islam? One sees this reaction even in some of the seemingly most Westernized, most sophisticated, and suavest of Muslims -- a sudden rage, a sudden rush of furious defensiveness that overcomes the truth, that makes even someone who a minute ago was so calm, so rational, so seemingly part of the smae moral and intellectual universe -- and who a minute before might have been attacking aspects of Islam himself -- will, if an Infidel agrees with the attack, or dares to add his own two-cents' worth to the discussion, will withdraw into a circling-the-wagons mode.

5) Muslims through time and space lived in the lands they conquered through the loot acquired from non-Muslims, and they continued to exploit those non-Muslims thorugh the jizyah, and in other ways. As historians of India well know, the Hindus were initially subject to mass execution and mass enslavement. Some of those enslaved converted. Others did not wait to be enslaved, but converted after witnessing the realities of life under Muslim rule. But the Mughal -- and even the earliest Muslim rulers from the initial conquests -- realized that if the only possible choices open to Hindus -- as non-People of the Book (ahl al-kitab), they were not permitted to live and practice openly their religion -- were death or conversion, then there would ultimately be no non-Muslims left to be exploited economically for the purposes of the Muslim state. This could end the fabled Mughal luxury, the famed Mughal magnificence that so entrances certain writers (as the upscale, and more scholarly, Barbara Cartland of Mughal India, William Dalrymple). Hindus were accorded "honorary" status as dhimmis, not because of Muslim mercy, but because by so doing, the ruling Muslims could economically exploit them through the jizyah (which the tolerant, syncretistic Akbar managed to temporarily suspend -- one more reason why Akbar is remembered fondly by Hindus, and despised by Muslims).

Another way of finding loot, or slaves to exploit, were the constant series of slaving raids. Islam created slave societies -- slaves on horseback, slaves in the harem, slaves to build the palace of Moulay Hasan or the Taj Mahal. Everywhere, slaves from non-Muslim lands -- from black Africa by the tens of millions, slaves from the Slavic lands and Georgia and Circassia, by the many millions, and slaves taken over centuries by raiding parties that landed, destroyed villages, and seized villagers up and down the coasts of Western Europe. This too was a source of wealth, and in fact the corsairs that left ports in North Africa, especially Algiers, continued to raid Christian shipping until two things -- the American military response to the Barbary Pirates, and then the seizure, by the exasperated French, of Algiers in 1830, which put an end to the corsairs and their officially-sanctioned raids on Christian cargoes and enslavement of Infidel sailors.

The corsair-piracy has stopped, or found new means of expression, but the jizyah, in disguised forms, has continued. Arab and Muslim states have economies that depend heavily on one of two things:

1. The oil and gas-rich Muslim states depend on this manna from Allah -- which is exactly how they see it. They do not regard this accident of geology as an accident of geology, but as a sign of Allah's favor -- why else should so much of the oil lie under the lands of dar al-Islam?

2. The Arab and Muslim states that do not possess oil wealth, instead of having the oil-rich Muslim states share that wealth, have managed to get on the Infidel list of countries deserving of foreign aid. Suddenly that supposed loyalty of the umma al-islamiyya seems to disappear when it comes to oil money, save for the sums given to reward suicide bombers among the "Palestinians," and of course for any significant arms projects. No matter how corrupt, how full of anti-Americanism and antisemitism these societies may be, Western money keeps pouring in: to Egypt ($60 billion from America alone), to Pakistan, to Jordan, and to the shock troops of the Jihad against Israel, the local Arabs who after 1967 were carefully renamed as the "Palestinian people" so as to disguise the essential nature, and ultimate aims (not exactly concealed, by the way) of the Arab war on Israel, an Infidel sovereign state in the midst of dar al-Islam that must, in Arab and Muslim eyes, go -- sooner or later. It is a matter of pride. It is a matter of self-esteem. It is a matter of how the Arabs and the Muslims see themselves. What else could possibly matter?

The $9 billion pledged by the G-8 at Gleneagles to keep afloat a non-viable state, or a state that will only be viable at the expense of tiny Israel, because for some reason everyone has ignored the real history of that area, the demographics, the nature of land ownership, and as well has decided to apply rules about territory either captured from an aggressor, or if not captured directly, assigned to one of the winning members in a coalition -- rules that have been applied after every war. For how else did Italy acquire the Alto Adige, which when it was handed over had a population that was 97% German-speaking and ethnically part of Deutschtum? Yet who among us thinks Italy was not entitled to, and should return to Austria, the Sudtirol it possesses? And what of all the changes in borders after World War II, and the expulsion of ethnic Germans from Czechoslovakia (3 million Sudeteners), from Poland, and elsewhere, not to mention land taken (Kaliningrad was once Kant's Koenigsberg)?

Yet the Americans and Europeans pay the jizyah to the "Palestinians" and are fearful of stopping, just as they continue to pay Pakistan, the supporter and promoter of the Taliban, the supporter and promoter of Dr. A. Q. Khan (without whom North Korea would not be the problem it is today). We continue to engage in bribery instead of reading Pakistan the riot-act, threatening to destroy not only its military (withholding all parts, all future deliveries) but also its economy (no one has to buy the child-labor textiles and rugs of Pakistan, and while that economy -- that is, while its zamindars -- are prospering, that can be ended in a minute).

Within Europe, the Muslims have the same attitude. The property and women of the Infidels belongs to them. There is nothing wrong with taking Infidel property. There is nothing wrong with raping Infidel women. It is not an accident that 70% of the prison population in France is Muslim; that 70% of the rapes of women in Scandinavia are by Muslims; that the drug traffickers in Holland, and the spacciatori di droga in Italy, are Muslims -- no, this should not surprise.

What does surprise is the failure of the non-Muslim world to understand that this all fits into, and can be explained by, a coherent ideology that makes it virtually impossible for Muslims -- to the extent that they remain full believers, or turn into full believers -- to ever comfortably fit into, or ever accept, Western or other non-Muslim societies, mores, manners, laws, or ever to accept the idea of living in a society where the Infidel ways, the Infidel understandings, are to be permanent. This rankles Muslims. This is not right. The world belongs in the end to Allah, and to his people. It is to them that the property and women of others belongs. Not every Believer feels this, but in the canonical texts, and the tenets logically derived from them, and in the attitudes and atmospherics to which those tenets and the whole system of Islam gives rise, these views are not strange but natural and familiar.

And then there is another problem: the problem of the "moderate" Muslim -- which is to say, the relaxed, or unobservant Muslim, the Muslim who may not act according to the tenets of Islam today, but may suddenly acquire a deep psychic need to return to Islam, for whatever reasons. When one is in mental disarray, and happens to be a Muslim, provided with a Total Explanation of the Universe, and a Complete Regulation of existence, one can quite easily come to view the universe through the prism of islam.

And it need be nothing political -- nothing in the newspapers -- that sets one off. A death in the family, the loss of a job, the failure to get into a certain school, the perception that others do not share one's worldview and see no reason to accommodate themselves, and of course the depression that can come upon so many of us, Muslim and non-Muslim, at any time -- are all cause for alarm. But non-Muslims provide their own answers, their own home remedies, as they can, and those answers, and their affixing of blame for their problems, can be as various as their parents, their spouses, their children, their siblings, their employer, The System, the stars, Fate, their cholesterol level, their serotonin level, even -- at times -- themselves. Muslims have only to look to the one thing that always presents itself to be blamed: the Infidels. Their wiles, their whisperings of Shaytan, their decadence, their indifference, their whateveritis of which Infidels are guilty. And once a non-Muslim Muslim, a "Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only" Muslim, begins to redsicover Islam, to return to Islam, he can turn into that other thing -- a Muslim Muslim. And that is the problem, the permanent problem for Infidels, who have done nothing to deserve this ever-ready, this omnipresent blame.

There is no solution. Reducing Muslim numbers, and Muslim power, and ensuring that the Infidel lands do not engage in some kind of attempt to win Muslims by changing their own laws and customs, but remain implacably themselves, or perhaps deliberately Islam-hostile rather than Islam-friendly, so that those who now claim that they are "thinking of leaving" really do leave -- would anyone wish to stop them -- should be the goal of Infidels, engaged only in defending themselves against the carriers of Jihad, all over the world.

[Raju]

Guys plz read the above article very carefully because it explains many things !

[LifeIsBeautiful]

Man, Islam is this, Islam is that.

Look if Guru Ji thought islam was false, he would have CLEARLY said it.

But he didn't he said, 'Koi Bole Ram, Koi Kudhai..'

He never insulted Muslims, or Hindus, or denounced their dharam, nor did Guruji.

If we want to fight terror, look at what are the root causes, high unemployment, less opportunities for youth, finding an end to the madrassas, and helping to promote trade in their areas.

We should extend an open hand to these militants, they believe that they are being ill treated, why do they think that??

Lets find answers to the problem, not problems with the religion.

[Raju]

It is EXACTLY this sort of attitude that has bought the world to this sort of situation today. So are you going to 'talk sense' with someone who considers you as kufar and not even worth a human being.

You think people are wasting all these lines for nothing, and you have all the answers don't ya ?? Trust me you'r not the first to go down that line.

[randip singh]

Jinnah ?? What exactly are his qualifications that he should be made prime minister ? He did not even spend a single damn day in jail during the entire freedom struggle. Neither did any of his partners who ended up on that side of the border. He was in cahoots with Churchill and other members of the anti-India establishment in Britain to further his own ends. His only struggle was not for freedom but for his own comforts.

Why Jinnah ? and why not Bacha khan...atleast he went to jail alongside Gandhi is a far better individual than that corrupted fellow.

113221[/snapback]

I that case, why the hell Nehru? Jinnah did as much as him for the Quit India movement. Maybe Jinnah should have knocked off Mountbattens Mrs , he would have become PM.

JInnah had as much right as Nehru. Look into why Jinnah formed the Muslim League.

And hello sir ! even Iraq has freedom fighters who oppose american and british colonisation of their country, it is just that the Islamists have tainted the name of the genuine freedom fighters as well. But that does not mean Iraqis have no pride and are happy under a bunch of people who have shown scant regard for Iraqi human rights and are involved in the death of atleast a million Iraqi children in the 90s. And you think everything is forgiven now ??

113221[/snapback]

Colonistaion? You really are having a laugh. I suppose the Iraqi elections were rigged and the over 60% Iraqi turnout never happened. You are comparing apples with oranges my friend. You cannot begin to compare India's Independence with Iraq's suffice to say they probably culd have done with a further 10 year hand over perios under the British, which may have avoided partition casualties.

There are NO genuine freedom fighters in Iraq. The majority of Iraqi's have spoken in the elections and want an elected government. You are giving legitamacy to a terrorist movement that seeks to overthrow a democraticly elected regime in Iraq.

There is only one person to blame for Iraqi deaths in the 90's and that is Saddam. You are delusional if you think US and UK forces deliberately target civilians in their campaigns. The Iraqi terrorists do that.

http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/...2004100102.html - 37 Iraqi Children killed by your "Freedom fighters"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1527861,00.html 27 Iraqi children killed by your "freedom fighters"

This is the latest count

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4692589.stm

Most have been killed by terrorists after the invasion.

As for Iraqi views, I suggest you go on to the bbc weblog. You will see a general approval by Iraqi's of the invasion and getting rid of Saddam.

And as far as dialogue is concerned even we are holding dialogues with Musharraf who until yesterday was the biggest terrorist sympathizer. You are just proving my point for me.

113221[/snapback]

Your points? You are really on one. You can't back your points up with facts mate, so how can you have any?

Proving points? I think the Indian Government has commited more acts of terror against its own people than Pakistan could ever hope to yet we are still talikg to them! :doh: @

If Musharaf is willing to fight the war on terror all well and good.

[randip singh]

It is clear the British govtment is now paying for the chickens that have come home to roost analogy.

Like I said in my previous post sometime ago, had the British administration not created Pakistan and had given the Sikhs their nation and homeland (Punjab) back in 1947 there would not have been this problem with Pakistani Islamic jihadi's being fostered in hate, racism and terrorism against the world today.

Even most British born Pakistani Muslims support Pakistan more than the land (UK)where they were born and brought up in. You just have to look at Pakistan's indepedance day aug 14th to see how many Pakistani's celebrate it compared to muslims, sikhs and hindu's of Indian origin on aug 15th ( india's indepedance day) very few because most British Indian's feel more loyality towards the land that they were brought up in.

I think the British Govt hasnt fully woken uptio to how big this problem is. Because we still have Islamic leaders who believe muslims played no part in the attacks when the evidence and circumstances now prove beyond doubt that they did.

President Musharraf himself is under attack from radicals in his own back yard and is now paying for the jihadi element which was allowed to grow like bacteria unchecked and which now threatens to infect pakistan's political scene with the agenda of hate fuelled islamists.

113227[/snapback]

What you fail to appreciate is that India has never been one country as such. It has only been loosely united under the Mughals and then the British.

We can blame the British all we want, but the blame sqarely lies with the backward retarded mentality of the people from the Indian Subcontinent. Maybe they should have a nuclear war, so we can start again.

[Raju]

that case, why the hell Nehru? Jinnah did as much as him for the Quit India movement. Maybe Jinnah should have knocked off Mountbattens Mrs , he would have become PM.

JInnah had as much right as Nehru. Look into why Jinnah formed the Muslim League

Can you give me proof that Jinnah spent 1 single day in jail ?? Just a single day ??

Any proof ? Should not be difficult since you claim he was such a hot-shot freedom fighter etc

He was hand-in-glove with Churchill from 40s onwards, and both were busy looting India. The british establishment also wanted to split India on religious grounds so that we did not emerge a threat to America at that time. Combined India was the 2nd biggest country in the world at that time in terms of land area alone.

There are NO genuine freedom fighters in Iraq. The majority of Iraqi's have spoken in the elections and want an elected government. You are giving legitamacy to a terrorist movement that seeks to overthrow a democraticly elected regime in Iraq.

Phai je you have been totally brainwashed by the western media. If you listen to BBC and CNN and FOX, it would have one believe that Iraq is the most peaceful place on earth post colonisation except those Islamist types or disgruntled Baathists. Why would they expose themselves by saying that Iraq has genuine freedom fighters ?? Have they punished even 1 real suspect in the Abu Ghraib scandal except for some fall-guys. and Freedom fighters do not target crowds and children, those are the antics of the Islamists (suicide bomb & get 72 <admin-profanity filter activated> types) or even worse foreign opportunists working for various agencies etc.

[Raju]

I agree that the govt of India is no saint by any means but India (esp North India) at the time of Independence was a terribly screwed up country. After 700 years of mughal bastardy and 200 years of british tyranny and loot the country was totally wasted. It is only now that the pieces are being collected one-by-one and being made assembled into a giant jigsaw. I am aware that you might have your reasons for bitterness with India but it is pretty easy to blame India at every step sitting 7000 miles away and not realize the enormity of the task or how complicated things are here. The past is behind is and was not a happy prospect, but the future is India's and we shall take it by peace or by war. This is what Indians owe to their ancestors.

[randip singh]

Raju,

I've said all along, that its very easy to blame others (just like its easy for YOU to blame the Brits, Americans, Mughals and anyone else who has looked in the direction of india).

Who allowed the Mughals to consolidate there power in India. The Hindu Princes/Raja's. Good old patriotic Indian hey!

Who allowed the British to rule and consolidate their power. The various Independent Indian states.

These people were just opportunists who took advantage of a narrow minded and biggoted people, who were inward looking, ridden with superstition and hampered with caste. I don't blame the Mughals and Brits for that.

As for Iraq. You will notice, these are Arab links as well. The BBC is not always independent, but by far the most independent in the world. Also. bear in mind, Saddam troops were part of a SECULAR regime and did not do anything in the name of Allah. These current TERRORISTS in Iraq behead and blow up people in the the name of ALLAH. Two seperate and distinct ideoligies. When Zarquawi beheads someone on TV, it is to the words of Allah Hoo Akhbar, with the Koranic Versus behind him. Not the Iraqi flag! It is quite obvious these people are not freedom fighters and cannot be compared to India's freedom fighters in any way whatso ever.

The second point to bear in mind is that democratic elections have taken place, under the observation of INDEPENDENT UN observers. The majority of Iraqi's want a democratic system (over 60% voted for this). Some 30% of Sunni's were threatened with death by these "freedom" fighters, and prevented from voting. Plain wrong. These people are ANARCHISTS and TERRORISTS trying to undermine a DEMOCRATICALLY elected regime. There is no way Bhagat Singh or Udham Singh would have supported this. You are doing a diservice by comparing Indian Freedom Fighters with RELIGIOUS fanatics in Iraq.

Whats jail got to do with anything. Nehru and Gandhi did plenty of Shady deals with the British. Nehru and Ghandhi were happy with Dominion status until Bhaghat Singh (and his "misguided" bunch) started asking for Independence. Raju, don't start lecturing me about Indian History, I know it very well thanks. :doh:

[Raju]

"These people were just opportunists who took advantage of a narrow minded and biggoted people, who were inward looking, ridden with superstition and hampered with caste. I don't blame the Mughals and Brits for that."

No, you must never blame them. It is unfortunate that you must justify your sense of fairness and equate these butchers with some 2-bit Hindu rajas. This is not a unique to you alone, almost all liberal hindus and christians spend a fair proportion of their time arguing amongst themselves and trying to be fair to all manner of rogues. In Islam OTH there is no argument, if you argue some Mullah will issue a fatwa and some fanatic gonna chop your head off. People have no idea that they are up against a religion who single-mindedly pursues their goals and brooks no dissent.

BBC is a joke. I saw them report in the Iraq war, and I saw the massive propaganda warfare they conducted in the first few days. I have also seen the impartiality of the BBC when they report on the Indian subcontinent. THey are hopelessly pro-paki.

No point in debating here either, you have sold your soul to the Gorreh ! You are impervious to reason.