religion   next »



By resistance following x   2007 Sep 11, 1:35am 225,906 views   826 comments   watch   quote     share  

Originally from

A Call to the Muslims of the World from a Group of Freethinkers and Humanists of Muslim Origins

Dear friends,
The tragic incidents of September 11 have shocked the world. It is unthinkable that anyone could be so full of hate as to commit such heinous acts and kill so many innocent people. We people of Muslim origin are as much shaken as the rest of the world and yet we find ourselves looked upon with suspicion and distrust by our neighbours and fellow citizens. We want to cry out and tell the world that we are not terrorists, and that those who perpetrate such despicable acts are murderers and not part of us. But, in reality, because of our Muslim origins we just cannot erase the stigma of Islamic Terrorism from our identity!

What most Muslims will say:

Islam would never support the killing of innocent people. Allah of the Holy Qur'an never advocated killings. This is all the work of a few misguided individuals at the fringes of society. The real Islam is sanctified from violence. We denounce all violence. Islam means peace. Islam means tolerance.

What knowledgeable Muslims should say:

That is what most Muslims think, but is it true? Does Islam really preach peace, tolerance and non-violence? The Muslims who perpetrate these crimes think differently. They believe that what they do is Jihad (holy war). They say that killing unbelievers is mandatory for every Muslim. They do not kill because they wish to break the laws of Islam but because they think this is what true Muslims should do. Those who blow-up their own bodies to kill more innocent people do so because they think they will be rewarded in Paradise. They hope to be blessed by Allah, eat celestial food, drink pure wine and enjoy the company of divine consorts. Are they completely misguided? Where did they get this distorted idea? How did they come to believe that killing innocent people pleases God? Or is it that we are misguided? Does really Islam preach violence? Does it call upon its believers to kill non-believers? We denounce those who commit acts of violence and call them extremists. But are they really extremists or are they following what the holy book, the Qur'an tells them to do? What does the Qur'an teach? Have we read the Qur'an? Do we know what kind of teachings are there? Let us go through some of them and take a closer look at what Allah says.

What the Qur'an Teaches Us:

We have used the most widely available English text of the Qur'an and readers are welcome to verify our quotes from the holy book. Please have an open mind and read through these verses again and again. The following quotes are taken from the most trusted Yusufali's translation of the Qur'an. The Qur'an tells us: not to make friendship with Jews and Christians (5:51), kill the disbelievers wherever we find them (2:191), murder them and treat them harshly (9:123), fight and slay the Pagans, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (9:5). The Qur'an demands that we fight the unbelievers, and promises If there are twenty amongst you, you will vanquish two hundred: if a hundred, you will vanquish a thousand of them (8:65). Allah and his messenger want us to fight the Christians and the Jews until they pay the Jizya [a penalty tax for the non-Muslims living under Islamic rules] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued (9:29). Allah and his messenger announce that it is acceptable to go back on our promises (treaties) and obligations with Pagans and make war on them whenever we find ourselves strong enough to do so (9:3). Our God tells us to fight the unbelievers and He will punish them by our hands, cover them with shame and help us (to victory) over them (9:14).

The Qur'an takes away the freedom of belief from all humanity and relegates those who disbelieve in Islam to hell (5:10), calls them najis (filthy, untouchable, impure) (9:28), and orders its followers to fight the unbelievers until no other religion except Islam is left (2:193). It says that the non-believers will go to hell and will drink boiling water (14:17). It asks the Muslims to slay or crucify or cut the hands and feet of the unbelievers, that they be expelled from the land with disgrace and that they shall have a great punishment in world hereafter (5:34). And tells us that for them (the unbelievers) garments of fire shall be cut and there shall be poured over their heads boiling water whereby whatever is in their bowels and skin shall be dissolved and they will be punished with hooked iron rods (22:19-22) and that they not only will have disgrace in this life, but on the Day of Judgment He shall make them taste the Penalty of burning (Fire) (22:9). The Qur'an says that those who invoke a god other than Allah not only should meet punishment in this world but the Penalty on the Day of Judgment will be doubled to them, and they will dwell therein in ignominy (25:68). For those who believe not in Allah and His Messenger, He has prepared, for those who reject Allah, a Blazing Fire! (48:13). Although we are asked to be compassionate amongst each other, we have to be harsh with unbelievers, our Christian, Jewish and Atheist neighbours and colleagues (48:29). As for him who does not believe in Islam, the Prophet announces with a stern command: Seize ye him, and bind ye him, And burn ye him in the Blazing Fire. Further, make him march in a chain, whereof the length is seventy cubits! This was he that would not believe in Allah Most High. And would not encourage the feeding of the indigent! So no friend hath he here this Day. Nor hath he any food except the corruption from the washing of wounds, Which none do eat but those in sin. (69:30-37) The Qur'an prohibits a Muslim from befriending a non-believer even if that non-believer is the father or the brother of that Muslim (9:23), (3:28). Our holy book asks us to be disobedient towards the disbelievers and their governments and strive against the unbelievers with great endeavour (25:52) and be stern with them because they belong to Hell (66:9). The holy Prophet prescribes fighting for us and tells us that it is good for us even if we dislike it (2:216). Then he advises us to strike off the heads of the disbelievers; and after making a wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives (47:4). Our God has promised to instil terror into the hearts of the unbelievers and has ordered us to smite above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them (8:12). He also assures us that when we kill in his name it is not us who slay them but Allah, in order that He might test the Believers by a gracious trial from Himself (8:17). He orders us to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies (8:60). He has made the Jihad mandatory and warns us that Unless we go forth, (for Jihad) He will punish us with a grievous penalty, and put others in our place (9:39). Allah speaks to our Holy Prophet and says O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern against them. Their abode is Hell - an evil refuge indeed (9:73).

He promises us that in the fight for His cause whether we slay or are slain we return to the garden of Paradise (9:111). In Paradise he will wed us with Houris (celestial virgins) pure beautiful ones (56:54), and unite us with large-eyed beautiful ones while we recline on our thrones set in lines (56:20). There we are promised to eat and drink pleasantly for what we did (56:19). He also promises boys like hidden pearls (56:24) and youth never altering in age like scattered pearls (for those who have paedophiliac inclinations) (76:19). As you see, Allah has promised all sorts or rewards, gluttony and unlimited sex to Muslim men who kill unbelievers in his name. We will be admitted to Paradise where we shall find goodly things, beautiful ones, pure ones confined to the pavilions that man has not touched them before nor jinni (56:67-71).In the West we enjoy freedom of belief but we are not supposed to give such freedom to anyone else because it is written If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good) (3:85). And He orders us to fight them on until there is no more tumult and faith in Allah is practiced everywhere (8:39). As for women the book of Allah says that they are inferior to men and their husbands have the right to scourge them if they are found disobedient (4:34). It advises to take a green branch and beat your wife, because a green branch is more flexible and hurts more. (38:44). It teaches that women will go to hell if they are disobedient to their husbands (66:10). It maintains that men have an advantage over the women (2:228). It not only denies the women's equal right to their inheritance (4:11-12), it also regards them as imbeciles and decrees that their witness is not admissible in the courts of law (2:282). This means that a woman who is raped cannot accuse her rapist unless she can produce a male witness. Our Holy Prophet allows us to marry up to four wives and he licensed us to sleep with our slave maids and as many 'captive' women as we may have (4:3) even if those women are already married. He himself did just that. This is why anytime a Muslim army subdues another nation, they call them kafir and allow themselves to rape their women. Pakistani soldiers allegedly raped up to 250,000 Bengali women in 1971 after they massacred 3,000,000 unarmed civilians when their religious leader decreed that Bangladeshis are un-Islamic. This is why the prison guards in Islamic regime of Iran rape the women that in their opinion are apostates prior to killing them, as they believe a virgin will not go to Hell.

Dear fellow Muslims:Is this the Islam you believe in? Is this your Most Merciful, Most Compassionate Allah whom you worship daily? Could Allah incite you to kill other peoples? Please understand that there is no terrorist gene - but there could be a terrorist mindset. That mindset finds its most fertile ground in the tenets of Islam. Denying it, and presenting Islam to the lay public as a religion of peace similar to Buddhism, is to suppress the truth. The history of Islam between the 7th and 14th centuries is riddled with violence, fratricide and wars of aggression, starting right from the death of the Prophet and during the so-called 'pure' or orthodox caliphate. And Muhammad himself hoisted the standard of killing, looting, massacres and bloodshed. How can we deny the entire history? The behaviour of our Holy Prophet as recorded in authentic Islamic sources is quite questionable from a modern viewpoint. The Prophet was a charismatic man but he had few virtues. Imitating him in all aspects of life (following the Sunnah) is both impossible and dangerous in the 21st century. Why are we so helplessly in denial over this simple issue? When the Prophet was in Mecca and he was still not powerful enough he called for tolerance. He said To you be your religion, and to me my religion (109:6). This famous quote is often misused to prove that the general principle of Qur'an is tolerance. He advised his follower to speak good to their enemies (2: 83), exhorted them to be patient (20:103) and said that there is no compulsion in religion (2:256). But that all changed drastically when he came to power. Then killing and slaying unbelievers with harshness and without mercy was justified in innumerable verses. The verses quoted to prove Islam's tolerance ignore many other verses that bear no trace of tolerance or forgiveness. Where is tolerance in this well-known verse Alarzu Lillah, Walhukmu Lillah. (The Earth belongs to Allah and thus only Allah's rule should prevail all over the earth.).Is it normal that a book revealed by God should have so many serious contradictions? The Prophet himself set the example of unleashing violence by invading the Jewish settlements, breaking treaties he had signed with them and banishing some of them after confiscating their belongings, massacring others and taking their wives and children as slaves. He inspected the youngsters and massacred all those who had pubic hair along with the men. Those who were younger he kept as slaves. He distributed the women captured in his raids among his soldiers keeping the prettiest for himself (33:50). He made sexual advances on Safiyah, a Jewish girl on the same day he captured her town Kheibar and killed her father, her husband and many of her relatives. Reyhana was another Jewish girl of Bani Quriza whom he used as a sex slave after killing all her male relatives. In the last ten years of his life he accumulated two scores of wives, concubines and sex slaves including the 9 year old Ayesha. These are not stories but records from authentic Islamic history and the Hadiths. It can be argued that this kind of behaviour was not unknown or unusual for the conquerors and leaders of the mediaeval world but these are not the activities befitting of a peaceful saint and certainly not someone who claimed to be the Mercy of God for all creation. There were known assassinations of adversaries during the Prophet's time, which he had knowledge of and had supported. Among them there was a 120 year old man, Abu 'Afak whose only crime was to compose a lyric satirical of the Prophet. (by Ibn Sa'd Kitab al Tabaqat al Kabir, Volume 2, page 32) Then when a poetess, a mother of 5 small children 'Asma' Bint Marwan wrote a poetry cursing the Arabs for letting Muhammad assassinate an old man, our Holy Prophet ordered her to be assassinated too in the middle of the night while her youngest child was suckling from her breast. (Sirat Rasul Allah (A. Guillaume's translation The Life of Muhammad) page 675, 676).The Prophet did develop a 'Robin Hood' image that justified raiding merchant caravans attacking cities and towns, killing people and looting their belongings in the name of social justice. Usama Bin Laden is also trying to create the same image. But Robin Hood didn't claim to be a prophet or a pacifist nor did he care for apologist arguments. He did not massacre innocent people indiscriminately nor did he profit by reducing free people to slaves and then trading them. With the known and documented violent legacy of Islam, how can we suddenly rediscover it as a religion of peace in the free world in the 21st century? Isn't this the perpetuation of a lie by a few ambitious leaders in order to gain political control of the huge and ignorant Muslim population? They are creating a polished version of Islam by completely ignoring history. They are propagating the same old dogma for simple believing people in a crisp new modern package. Their aim: to gain political power in today's high-tension world. They want to use the confrontational power of the original Islam to catalyse new conflicts and control new circles of power.

Dear conscientious Muslims, please question yourselves. Isn't this compulsive following of a man who lived 1400 years ago leading us to doom in a changing world? Do the followers of any other religion follow one man in such an all-encompassing way? Who are we deceiving, them or ourselves? Dear brothers and sisters, see how our Umma (people) has sunk into poverty and how it lags behind the rest of the world. Isn't it because we are following a religion that is outdated and impractical? In this crucial moment of history, when a great catastrophe has befallen us and a much bigger one is lying ahead, should not we wake up from our 1400 years of slumber and see where things have gone wrong? Hatred has filled the air and the world is bracing itself for its doomsday. Should we not ask ourselves whether we have contributed, wittingly or unwittingly, to this tragedy and whether we can stop the great disaster from happening?Unfortunately the answer to the first question is yes. Yes we have contributed to the rise of fundamentalism by merely claiming Islam is a religion of peace, by simply being a Muslim and by saying our shahada (testimony that Allah is the only God and Muhammad is his messenger). By our shahada we have recognized Muhammad as a true messenger of God and his book as the words of God. But as you saw above those words are anything but from God. They call for killing, they are prescriptions for hate and they foment intolerance. And when the ignorant among us read those hate-laden verses, they act on them and the result is the infamous September 11, human bombs in Israel, massacres in East Timor and Bangladesh, kidnappings and killings in the Philippines, slavery in the Sudan, honour killings in Pakistan and Jordan, torture in Iran, stoning and maiming in Afghanistan and Iran, violence in Algeria, terrorism in Palestine and misery and death in every Islamic country. We are responsible because we endorse Islam and hail it as a religion of God. And we are as guilty as those who put into practice what the Qur'an preaches - and ironically we are the main victims too. If we are not terrorists, if we love peace, if we cried with the rest of the word for what happened in New York, then why are we supporting the Qur'an that preaches killing, that advocates holy war, that calls for the murder of non-Muslims? It is not the extremists who have misunderstood Islam. They do literally what the Qur'an asks them to do. It is we who misunderstand Islam. We are the ones who are confused. We are the ones who wrongly assume that Islam is the religion of peace. Islam is not a religion of peace. In its so-called pure form it can very well be interpreted as a doctrine of hate. Terrorists are doing just that and we the intellectual apologists of Islam are justifying it. We can stop this madness. Yes, we can avert the disaster that is hovering over our heads. Yes, we can denounce the doctrines that promote hate. Yes, we can embrace the rest of humanity with love. Yes, we can become part of a united world, members of one human family, flowers of one garden. We can dump the claim of infallibility of our Book, and the questionable legacy of our Prophet.Dear friends, there is no time to waste. Let us put an end to this lie. Let us not fool ourselves. Islam is not a religion of peace, of tolerance, of equality or of unity of humankind. Let us read the Qur'an. Let us face the truth even if it is painful. As long as we keep this lie alive, as long as we hide our head in the sands of Arabia we are feeding terrorism. As long as you and I keep calling Qur'an the unchangeable book of God, we cannot blame those who follow the teachings therein. As long as we pay our Khums and Zakat our money goes to promote Islamic expansionism and that means terrorism, Jihad and war. Islam divides the world in two. Darul Harb (land of war) and Darul Islam (land of Islam). Darul Harb is the land of the infidels, Muslims are required to infiltrate those lands, proselytise and procreate until their numbers increase and then start the war and fight and kill the people and impose the religion of Islam on them and convert that land into Darul Islam. In all fairness we denounce this betrayal. This is abuse of the trust. How can we make war in the countries that have sheltered us? How can we kill those who have befriended us? Yet willingly or unwillingly we have become pawns in this Islamic Imperialism. Let us see what great Islamic scholars have had to say in this respect.Dr. M. Khan the translator of Sahih Bukhari and the Qur'an into English wrote: Allah revealed in Sura Bara'at (Repentance, IX) the order to discard (all) obligations (covenants, etc), and commanded the Muslims to fight against all the Pagans as well as against the people of the Scriptures (Jews and Christians) if they do not embrace Islam, till they pay the Jizia (a tax levied on the Jews and Christians) with willing submission and feel themselves subdued (as it is revealed in 9:29). So the Muslims were not permitted to abandon the fighting against them (Pagans, Jews and Christians) and to reconcile with them and to suspend hostilities against them for an unlimited period while they are strong and have the ability to fight against them. So at first the fighting was forbidden, then it was permitted, and after that it was made obligatory [Introduction to English translation of Sahih Bukhari, p.xxiv.] Dr. Sobhy as-Saleh, a contemporary Islamic academician quoted Imam Suyuti the author of Itqan Fi 'Ulum al- Qur'an who wrote: The command to fight the infidels was delayed until the Muslims become strong, but when they were weak they were commanded to endure and be patient. [ Sobhy as_Saleh, Mabaheth Fi 'Ulum al- Qur'an, Dar al-'Ilm Lel-Malayeen, Beirut, 1983, p. 269.]Dr. Sobhy, in a footnote, commends the opinion of a scholar named Zarkashi who said: Allah the most high and wise revealed to Mohammad in his weak condition what suited the situation, because of his mercy to him and his followers. For if He gave them the command to fight while they were weak it would have been embarrassing and most difficult, but when the most high made Islam victorious He commanded him with what suited the situation, that is asking the people of the Book to become Muslims or to pay the levied tax, and the infidels to become Muslims or face death. These two options, to fight or to have peace return according to the strength or the weakness of the Muslims. [ibid p. 270]Other Islamic scholars (Ibn Hazm al-Andalusi, Ga'far ar-Razi, Rabi' Ibn 'Ons, 'Abil-'Aliyah, Abd ar-Rahman Ibn Zayd Ibn 'Aslam, etc.) agree that the verse Slay the idolaters wherever you find them (9:5) cancelled those few earlier verses that called for tolerance in the Qur'an and were revealed when Islam was weak. Can you still say that Islam is the religion of peace? We propose a solution.

We know too well that it is not easy to denounce our faith because it means denouncing a part of ourselves. We are a group of freethinkers and humanists with Islamic roots. Discovering the truth and leaving the religion of our fathers and forefathers was a painful experience. But after learning what Islam stands for we had no choice but to leave it. After becoming familiar with the Qur'an the choice became clear: It is either Islam or humanity. If Islam thrives, then humanity will die. We decided to side with humanity. Culturally we are still Muslims but we no longer believe in Islam as the true religion of God. We are humanists. We love humanity. We work for the unity of humankind. We work for equality between men and women. We strive for the secularisation of Islamic countries, for democracy and freedom of thought, belief and expression. We decided to live no longer in self-deception but to embrace humanity, and to enter into the new millennium hand in hand with people of other cultures and beliefs in amity and in peace.We denounce the violence that is eulogized in the Qur'an as holy war (Jihad). We condemn killing in the name of God. We believe in the sanctity of human life, not in the inviolability of beliefs and religions. We invite you to join us and the rest of humanity and become part of the family of humankind - in love, camaraderie and peace.

Arabic translation

الترجمة العربية

See and for more.


Please copy this article, and distribute it as widely as possible, both online and physically. The future of humanity depends on it.

« First    « Previous     Comments 787 - 826 of 826     Last »

787 curious2   ignore (1)   2017 Aug 19, 5:40pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

drBu says

Is it normal to sign a treaty with a tribe and then break the treaty when it is convenient?

It is normal for Muslims, from Mohamed to the Barbary States. Again, read about Yathrib and the Barbary Wars. "Allah is the best deceiver." The purpose of a treaty, from an Islamic POV, is to allow the Muslims to postpone war to their own advantage and then attack their "ally" by deception and surprise. The vanquished "allies" are then slaughtered or enslaved, not given preferential admissions to universities and certainly not elected to govern over Muslims (see Indonesia for a brief exception, now in prison, former Governor Ahok).

Your other questions appear rhetorical.

You have a point about Iran. The US should have taken more of the oil revenue and required the Shah to end Islam in Iran. France should not have sheltered Khomeini. Hindsight is 20/20. Nevertheless, the backlash against the Shah (and by extension the US) resulted mainly from (a) religion and (b) resentment of the Shah's government. I've been reading The True Believer, which Patrick recommended, and it fits the Iranian example fairly well. Iranians prospered enough that they were not abjectly poor, and yet the government fomented a mass movement especially among religious Muslims. If the USA had taken the oil and installed a Shah who would end Islam, and if the USA had done something about Khomeini (e.g. required France to expel him), then the conditions that enabled the Iranian revolution would not have obtained in the country.

Imagine your enemy has a sword, and a written plan to chop off your head with it. The sword and plan are both his personal property, but he does not recognize property rights or any other rights other than by force. If you are in a position to take away the sword and the plan, and tell him to do something better with his life, would you be wrong to do that? Must you wait until he has actually injured you by chopping off your head before you begin to oppose him?

Consider also that America has already cassus belli against KSA and Pakistan, and an unfortunate history of waging Saudi-backed wars against other countries, strengthening enemies while weakening friends.

788 Strategist   ignore (0)   2017 Aug 19, 7:19pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

drBu says

3. Anyone in US has better opportunities than they would have in nearly any Muslim country. My personal opinion is that Muslim countries have not escaped early Middle Ages and that Islam is the most dangerous ideology that currently exists on Earth. One can not reason with most Muslims in any rational fashion because Mohammad. Basically, their ideology says that we are right BECAUSE we are right, and everyone else is wrong.

You can't reason with a mind possessed by a devil. Just put it out of it's misery.

789 Strategist   ignore (0)   2017 Aug 19, 7:28pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

curious2 says

France should not have sheltered Khomeini. Hindsight is 20/20.

France still has not seen it's mistakes. They continue to screw up.
Don't forget Jimmy Carter, the fool who stopped supporting the Shah of Iran, which led to Khomeini gaining power.
Moral of the story....Only dictators controlled by us are good enough for every Islamic country.

790 Dan8267   ignore (3)   2017 Aug 19, 10:37pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

Patrick says

The Indians themselves use the term "Indian" though.

Before or after Europeans called them that?

Patrick says

Who are we to correct them?

Someone who lives in the 21st century where 25% of the world's population is Indian and about 0% is Native American. You and I work in IT. Half the people with work with are Indians, real Indians. I've never met or seen a Native American with my own eyes. There are only a handful left. I doubt you've ever met on either. But we both work daily with actual Indians.

I prefer to use the correct terms because it makes no sense to say Indian to refer to such a rare group when there are so many Indians you interact with every single day of your life. It would be like calling horses cars. Sure, a few people may own horses, but it be damn confusing if people asked you what kind of hay you feed your car.

When you say Indian, I think they guy in the next office, not some long dead tribe of Native Americans. It makes no sense to use the same word to refer to a group you interact with daily and a completely unrelated group you've never interacted with in your entire life.

791 Ernie   ignore (0)   2017 Aug 20, 7:38am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

curious2 says

Is it normal to sign a treaty with a tribe and then break the treaty when it is convenient?

It is normal for Muslims, from Mohamed to the Barbary States.

Should not be normal for us then.

With respect to Iranian oil, it WAS taken in late 50's after CIA/MI-orchestrated overthrow of Mosadegh. The point of his ovethrow was to remove oil from Iranian control. Consequently, taking of oil caused (however indirectly) Islamic revolution. Perhaps if Mosadegh was not overthrown, Iran would be a reasonably democratic country.

793 curious2   ignore (1)   2017 Aug 25, 8:46am   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

drBu says

Perhaps if Mosadegh was not overthrown...

like Pakistan? Consider how the Saudis and Pakistanis aided and abetted Osama bin Laden, even hiding him from us while taking "aid" money and pretending to help find him. If 9/11 was not an act of war, then what is? How many American civilians need to be slaughtered, how much property destroyed, before you agree it might become reasonable to defend ourselves?

794 someone else   ignore (0)   2017 Aug 25, 9:02am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

drBu says

Perhaps if Mosadegh was not overthrown, Iran would be a reasonably democratic country.

By comparison to despotic Saudi Arabia, Iran actually is a reasonably democratic country. They have elections, not really free because Islam may not be questioned, but there is some democracy there:

That we support Saudi Arabia at all is comically hypocritical, and weakens the credibility of the United States. We say one thing ("We love democracy!") but do another (We support the least democratic and least tolerant regime on earth wholeheartedly, and sell them weapons.)

795 Ernie   ignore (0)   2017 Aug 25, 11:05am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

curious2 says

like Pakistan? Consider how the Saudis and Pakistanis aided and abetted

What connection with my example does this have? How many American civilians did Iranians slaughter? Why not compare Iran with Nazi Germany then, if you want a completely unrelated, scary example?

796 TwoScoopsMcGee   ignore (1)   2017 Aug 25, 11:18am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

China is begging us to reconsider our recent cold-shouldering of Pakistan re: Afghanistan.

We might, but at a price, right Kim Um?

Edit: An interesting article, but extremely biased.

797 socal2   ignore (0)   2017 Aug 25, 11:23am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

drBu says

Perhaps if the Shah was not overthrown, Iran would be a reasonably democratic country.


798 Ernie   ignore (0)   2017 Aug 25, 11:59am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

socal2 says

Perhaps if the Shah was not overthrown, Iran would be a reasonably democratic country.


Perhaps if Mosadegh was not overthrown, Shah would not be overthrown also.

799 curious2   ignore (1)   2017 Aug 26, 7:45pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

drBu says

compare Iran with Nazi Germany

They have a lot in common actually. The founding Nazis agreed with leading Muslims of their day that they had very similar doctrines. The difference is, Iran is kept in check by KSA's deals with President Nixon, which enabled KSA to convert the American eagle into the most lethal falcon in the Saudi collection. (If you think transgender seems unusual, look at an eagle behaving like a Saudi falcon, and almost nobody even questions the "alliance" based mainly on Petrodollar hypnosis.) If the Iranians step out of line, KSA would get to follow through on the Saudi plan for Iran.

BTW, if you're hoping America under KSA influence should have some sort of moral standards, look at the anonymous thread on Yemen. Turning against KSA instead would make more sense. How are the Yemenis any worse than their Iranian allies?

800 Strategist   ignore (0)   2017 Aug 26, 7:57pm   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

curious2 says

BTW, if you're hoping America under KSA influence should have some sort of moral standards, look at the anonymous thread on Yemen. Turning against KSA instead would make more sense. How are the hapless Yemenis any worse than their Iranian allies?

When it's all said and done, all Muslim countries are the same.....fanatical..dangerous..violent..cruel..immoral..evil..and a threat to to us.
Let them kill each other. If they're busy killing each other, they're not killing more of us.

802 BayAreaObserver   ignore (1)   2017 Sep 7, 2:00am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Islam encroaches on rule of law in Malaysia.

KUALA LUMPUR • Last week, the Malaysian administration's actions revealed not just a growing religious conservatism, but a will to ignore the rule of (secular) law in order to pursue it.

In a space of 24 hours, two agencies under the Home Ministry made clear that the government will impose its strict version of Islam on the country, despite advocating a modern, moderate approach to an international audience. Breaking The Silence: Voices Of Moderation - Islam In A Constitutional Democracy, a book written by the country's prominent Muslim intellectuals, was banned last Thursday - despite being on the shelves for more than a year - for being "prejudicial to public order". The next day, the National Registration Department (NRD) said it would ignore a court order allowing Muslim children conceived out of wedlock to take their biological father's name, preferring instead to adhere to religious edicts - that say all such children should be surnamed "bin or binti Abdullah" - issued by the National Fatwa Committee in 1981 and 2003.

Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi backed the NRD's stance, deepening concerns over the influence of Islamic conservatism on the government.

"Muslims must unite and agree that Islam must be respected and that we do not want any decisions made by the National Fatwa Committee to be challenged by anyone, whether an individual or a different legal system outside of the fatwa committee," said Datuk Seri Zahid, who is also Home Minister.

Universiti Malaya's Professor Shad Saleem Faruqi, considered the foremost expert on Malaysian constitutional law, told The Straits Times that disregarding the judgment was "clearly contempt of court and a violation of rule of law".

The NRD's decision is the most blatant among government agencies that seem increasingly empowered to ignore legal imperatives on the grounds of religion.

803 curious2   ignore (1)   2017 Sep 7, 9:05am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

"A senior American commander in Afghanistan apologized on Wednesday for a “highly offensive” leaflet that contained an image of a dog and the Taliban flag, which includes an Islamic verse.

The Taliban said the leaflet showed what they said was the American forces’ hatred of Islam, adding that Taliban fighters had carried out a suicide attack near the entrance to the Bagram Air Base, north of Kabul, in revenge. Local officials said that attack wounded four Afghan civilians.
“I sincerely apologize,” said General Linder, the American Special Operations commander in Afghanistan. “We have the deepest respect for Islam and our Muslim partners worldwide.” He added that an investigation would be conducted “to determine the cause of this incident and to hold the responsible party accountable.” The leaflet was intended to encourage Afghans to turn against the Taliban and cooperate with Afghan and coalition forces.

The governor of Parwan, Mohammad Asim, condemned the leaflet.

“Those who have committed this unforgivable mistake in the publicity, propaganda or media section of the coalition forces will be tried and punished,” Mr. Asim said.

The episode highlights one of the challenges facing international forces in Afghanistan, most of which are from non-Muslim cultures.

The episode highlights why everyone is losing in Afghanistan: our government insists on maintaining "respect" for Islam, when we should be condemning it. Afghans would be better off rejecting Islam. They could return to their Buddhist heritage if they want. Meanwhile, so long as they persist in the hateful fraud of the dead charlatan Mohamed, nobody can win there - including the Afghans themselves.
804 curious2   ignore (1)   2017 Sep 7, 9:17am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

"[ISIL/Daesh] Call For Poisoning of Food in Grocery Stores Across U.S. and Europe
Even though it has yet to be used, one U.S. case points to a jihadist attempting to follow the orders of the group and its followers. Police charged Amer Sinan Alhaggagi, a 22-year-old man from San Francisco, who spent time in Yemen.

Every time I go to a supermarket, I see more hijabs, often with babies, probably American-born. The decision to import Islam, actually subsidizing hijrah, is one of the most obviously self-defeating policy decisions of recent generations. Other self-defeating decisions include supporting KSA, including Hillary's War in Libya and Syria, and the ongoing war in Yemen, and insisting on "respect" for Islam. All of these go back to President Nixon's disastrous deals with KSA, switching the USD from the gold standard to the Petrodollar standard.
805 Strategist   ignore (0)   2017 Sep 7, 11:28am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

I see no reason to respect the human rights abuse that is Islam. Anyone that respects Islam is respecting human rights abuse.
Sick bastards.
806 BayAreaObserver   ignore (1)   2017 Sep 27, 2:07am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

KUALA LUMPUR: A Malaysian man has been reprimanded by Islamic authorities for "indecent dressing" after he was caught wearing shorts in public on the way to a football match, officials and reports said on Wednesday (Sep 27).

The case in Kelantan, a state ruled by an influential Islamist party, sparked widespread anger, and is the latest example of what critics describe as creeping conservatism in the mostly Muslim country.

Wan Khairul Hayyee Wali had stopped off to buy a burger from a street-side stall as he drove on Monday to play futsal, five-a-side football typically played on an indoor pitch.

But religious enforcement officers spotted the 30-year-old and handed him a notice saying that he had breached Islamic regulations dictating that Muslims should not wear revealing attire.

"It came as a shock to me when a religious department enforcement officer gave me a notice saying I have flouted the Shariah Criminal Enactment for exposing my knees," he was quoted as saying by the Star newspaper.

"Seriously, they can't expect me to wear a sarong to play futsal," he added.

Mohamad Fadzuli Mohamad Zain, deputy director of the Kelantan state religious enforcement unit, confirmed Khairul had been pulled aside for wearing shorts in the city of Kota Baru.

"On (Monday) 11 people including Khairul were given summonses for indecent dressing," he told AFP. Among the others reprimanded were four women whose outfits were deemed to be too tight, he said.


Related: Sultan of Johor slams launderette’s Muslims-only policy, says 'this is not a Taliban state'

SINGAPORE: Johor's Sultan Ibrahim Sultan Iskandar on Wednesday (Sep 27) threatened to shut down a launderette in the Malaysian state if it did not stop its discriminatory policy, The Star reported.

A photo of the Muar launderette began making its rounds on social media over the weekend showing a sign outside its premises which read "Only for Muslims", along with instructions for customers to remove their shoes before entering.

"Johor is not a Taliban state and as the head of Islam in Johor, I find this action to be totally unacceptable, as this is extremist in nature," The Star report quoted the sultan as saying.

“I want to put a stop to such extremism. Extremism has no place in my state. We take pride in being Bangsa Johor (Johoreans) and I want to know where the owner of this launderette learnt his Islam? Islam teaches the faithful to be tolerant and respect other people and faiths.”

808 Patrick   ignore (0)   2017 Sep 27, 7:51am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote
PAS is pushing a reform of the Shariah courts, a religious justice system parallel to the general judiciary of Malaysia. Hudud law has been enacted in the federal states of Kelantan and Terengganu, but so far, since it is supposed to be against the constitution of the federation it has not been implemented fully. The Sharia courts are limited to imposing fines, jail terms and caning. Hadi’s private member bill asks for harsher penalties like up to ten years prison and 100 lashes with the rattan cane. These would affect only Muslims, but the bill (RU355) meets criticism and resistance from the minorities, especially the Chinese-dominated Democratic Action Party (DAP). In the screenshot above from Star TV, Hadi is saying: “How can we agree with people who want to go against Islam?”
809 Strategist   ignore (0)   2017 Sep 27, 3:50pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

BayAreaObserver says
KUALA LUMPUR: A Malaysian man has been reprimanded by Islamic authorities for "indecent dressing" after he was caught wearing shorts in public on the way to a football match, officials and reports said on Wednesday (Sep 27).

So that's why hijab clad women have been staring at my legs all summer long. I thought they found my hairy legs sexy.
810 BayAreaObserver   ignore (1)   2017 Sep 28, 5:28pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

The Islamic State's Support Base in Pakistan Continues to Grow. The Islamic State’s flag emerges in Pakistan’s capital. How serious is the threat?

Last week, an Islamic State (IS) flag was seen hoisted above one of Islamabad’s main highways. The flag, which sprung the capital’s law enforcement agencies into action, bore the message “The caliphate is coming.” While the capital police have not been able been able to find the people behind the incident, the hoisting of the flag in Pakistan’s capital offers a chilling reminder that support for militant groups such as IS is growing in Pakistan.

The government in Pakistan has said that the hoisting of the militant group’s flag doesn’t mean that the IS threat is serious in Pakistan. While the group’s presence in the country may not have emerged in the form of an active resistance, the militant group’s “passive support” base has grown exponentially over the last few years.

Pakistan launched a major counterterrorism campaign more than two years ago to contain militancy in the country. One of the core aspects of Pakistan’s recent counterterrorism campaign was to revise the country’s public education curriculum, which has been filled with religiously inspired nationalistic rhetoric, and to regulate religious seminaries all across Pakistan, which continue to radicalize young minds. Unfortunately, beyond making tactical gains related to killing militants that are targeting the state, the country’s counterterrorism campaign has not achieved anything.

For 70 years, the ruling elite of Pakistan have accommodated religious fundamentalist demands in the country to either to safeguard their political interests or to keep the existing political power structure intact to sustain their rule. Now, in Pakistan, the credibility and legitimacy of politicians and bureaucrats is measured on the basis of their religious bona fides rather than the kinds of policies they hope to implement.

The rates of terrorist violence may have decreased in Pakistan in the last couple of years, but the country still continues to provide an environment that enables militancy. In such an environment, it’s only a matter of time before the Islamic State develops a popular support base in the country. Last week’s flag unfurling may ultimately be a warning worth taking seriously.

Full Article:
811 BayAreaObserver   ignore (1)   2017 Sep 30, 2:52pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Academia’s collaborative role in fostering Pakistani terror. Security agencies have rounded on Ansarul Sharia Pakistan, whose operatives have committed a number of atrocities in recent months. Not for the first time, the links to educational institutions are clear.

The abortive murder attempt on a senior leader of the secular Muttahida Quami Movement (MQM) in Karachi early this month has exposed a previously unknown terror outfit with close links to academic institutions in Sindh and Balochistan: Ansarul Sharia Pakistan (ASP).

Investigators claim the organization’s operatives, who they say have been involved in the murders of dozens of police personnel in Sindh and Balochistan, have Bachelor’s and Master’s Degrees from Karachi University and Sindh’s NED University of Engineering and Technology, (NEDUET).

Sources in Pakistan’s spy agencies told Asia Times they believed academics and administrative staff at educational institutions were in collusion with the ASP in disseminating extremist values.

Police say the ASP first surfaced in February 2017 when it was responsible for the killing of a retired Brigadier in the Baloch Colony area of Shahrah-e-Faisal, in Karachi.

Since then, the organization has staged regular attacks, mostly on security personnel. The outfit derives its ideological foundation from Al-Qaeda, Islamic State and Jaiesh Muhammad (The Army of Muhammad).

The emergence of such an organized, well-educated and tech-savvy terror outfit has prompted the Sindh government to declare that it is beefing up “verification processes and security auditing” at the province’s educational institutions, which appear to have become seedbeds for extremism and terrorism.

818 curious2   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 21, 4:54pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

"Egypt’s security forces suffered one of their heaviest attacks after militants firing rockets and detonating explosives hit a police operation on Friday in the western desert, authorities and security sources said on Saturday.

Three security sources said at least 52 police officers and conscripts had been killed in gun battles that erupted in the remote desert, but Egyptian authorities said only 16 men had died when their patrol came under attack.
At least 15 militants were also killed in the gun fight.
Security has been a key point for President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, a former military commander who presents himself as a bulwark against terrorism after leading the ouster of president Mohamed Mursi of the Muslim Brotherhood in 2013. Sisi was elected on a landslide a year later.
Security sources earlier said the police had been hunting hideout of the Hasm Movement, an Islamist militant group blamed for attacks on judges and police around the capital... Egyptian authorities say it is the armed militant wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist group it outlawed in 2013.
Since Sisi came to power, hundreds of troops and police have been killed in often sophisticated attacks by militants in the northern Sinai region, where Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis group pledged allegiance to Islamic State in 2014.

Last Sunday, at least 24 militants and six soldiers were killed in attacks on military outposts in North Sinai, when more than 100 militants repeatedly attacked security outposts south of the border town of Sheikh Zuweid.

Attacks have mostly hit police and armed forces, but militants have also extended their campaign outside the Sinai, targeting Egypt’s Christians with bomb attacks on churches in Cairo and other cities.
819 WookieMan   ignore (0)   2017 Oct 22, 6:56am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

@curious2, I've actually wanted to ask this for a while and I'm sure it may have been asked of you already. Why do you make entire paragraphs and like in the case above, the entire comment a link? I'm not sure I've ever really seen someone do it and just wondering if you have a reason for doing it.

Note: This is why I hate text/written words. I'm not trying to be an ass here if it seems like it. No pun intended, but I'm genuinely curious.
825 Strategist   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 11, 11:20am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

curious2 says
The 2400-student school is one of the largest in NSW."

Imagine that. The Australian government paying for a terrorist camp that will churn out 2400 hating and screaming Muslim radicals.

« First    « Previous     Comments 787 - 826 of 826     Last »

Comment as anon_852e9 or log in at top of page: